Smt. Ningavva v. State of Karnataka

6. Smt. Manjavva W/o. Padmappa Hosarayappanavar Aged about 42 years, 0cc: Agnil. R/o. Chinnikatti, Tal: Byadgi Dist. Haven

7. Sri. Bahubali, S/o. Somappa Gudi Aged about 18 years, 0cc: Student R/o. Chinnikatti, Tal: Byadgi Dist. Haven PETITIONERS (IN CRL.P.N0.10015/2011)

1. Manjappa Sb. Devendrappa Gudi Aged about 42 years 0cc: Agri., R/o. Chinnikatti Tq. Byadgi, Dist. Haven

2. Manjunath S/o. Nabhiraj Bidargeri Aged about 21 years, 0cc: Student R/o. Chinnikatti, Tal: Byadgi Dist. Haven PETITIONERS (IN CRL.P.NO.10014/2011) (By Sri, S. R. Hegde & Associates, Adv.) AND: State of Karnataka Kaginele Police Station, Dist. Haven Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench, Dharwad RESPONDENT (COMMON) (By Sri. Anand Kumar Navalgimath, HCOP) Criminal Petition No.10015/2011 is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking to grant bail in Kaginele P.S. Crime No.86/2010 p/u/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 504, 506(1) R/w 149 of IPC. Criminal Petition No.10014/2011 is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking to grant an anticipatory bail directing the Kaginele Police to release the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest in Kaginele P.S. crime No.86/2010 for the offences p/u/s 143, 147, 148, 328, 307, 504, 506(2) R/w 149 of IPC. These petitions coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 4

2. The petitioners criminal petition No.10015/2011 are seeking regular bail on rejection of their bail petition before the Court below and the petitioners connected criminal petition No.10014/2011 are seeking anticipatory bail as they are also alleged to have been involved in the same incident pertaining to the earlier petition.

3. The facts briefly stated are as follows: It is alleged in the complaint by one Nagappa that on

21.11.2010, at about 4.00 pm, when he was asleep in his house since he was unwell, he was informed by one of the villagers that his brother Suresh was injured and lying near the bus stand and he did rush there, he saw Suresh lying with bleeding injuries to his head and forehead and other parts of his body. He was also informed that it was these petitioners, who had together assaulted the said Suresh and it is on that basis, he had lodged the complaint with the jurisdictional police. Immediately 5 thereafter, some of the petitioners were arrested and they were remanded to judicial custody. It is those petitioners who had filed the petition for bail before the Court below and it was contended that they were innocent of any such alleged commission of offence. It is stated that there was a running dispute between the petitioners’ family and the family of the complainant as regards the cultivation of certain land and in this regard there was a constant tussle between the family of the petitioners and the complainant. The present compliant against the petitioners, therefore is an offshoot of the said dispute pertaining to their lands and hence, there was no substance in the complaint. The Court below however, has rejected the bail application as well as the anticipatory bail application filed by the other petitioners on the ground that the injured was in a critical condition and he was in the Intensive Care Unit of the SDM Hospital to which he admitted at Dharwad. Therefore, in that circumstance, where the ‘3 6 petitioners were accused of having committed a serious offence, the petitioners were not entitled to bail in the light of the statements of the witnesses who had seen the accused together attacking the injured and having regard to the condition of the injured, the Court below has rejected both the petitions of the petitioners. It is in that background, the present petitions have been filed.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the main reason for denial of the bail before the Court below was the fact that the injured was in the hospital and was in the Intensive Care Unit and that he was still not out of danger and having regard to the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police. The learned Counsel would now submit that, as per the certificate issued dated 18.1.2011, the injured was no longer in the Intensive Care Unit and in fact has been discharged and is fully recovered from his injuries. In any event, the statements of the witnesses, who are alleged to have claimed that the petitioners together had assaulted -t 7 the injured cannot be accepted on the face of it, since they are all interested witnesses and the relatives of complainant. The Court below having proceeded on the basis of those statements could not implicate all petitioners herein, to include women of the family and therefore, the allegations could not have been accepted against all the petitioners. In any event, it is not clear as to the petitioners, who actually inflicted any such injuries on the injured brother of the complainant and in these circumstances, learned Counsel would enlargement of the petitioners on bail.

5. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand would oppose the petitions and would seek to obtain further instructions, insofar as the claim that the injured has been discharged from the hospital since the filing of these petitions.

6. In the facts and circumstances as narrated above, the main reason for the Court below has taken a serious view of the case was that the injured was in the 8 Intensive Care Unit and then was a possibility that the injuries sustained by him were fatal. Now in view of the changed circumstance that injured has been discharged from hospital and having regard to the general statements made by the witnesses, on the basis of which the cases have been registered against the petitioners, would enable the petitioners to be enlarged on bail.

7. Accordingly, the criminal petition No.10015/2011 is allowed. The petitioners shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:

3. The petitioners shall furnish self-bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each, with three solvent sureties for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without leave of that Court. petitioners shall make The themselves available to the Investigation Officer as and purposes required investigation. g a 9

5. The petitioners shall not seek to threaten or tamper or influence the prosecution witnesses or the complainant at any point of time. The petitioners shall attend the trial on every date of hearing, except if exempted from such appearance for good and valid reason. Insofar petitioners criminal petition No.10014/2011 is concerned, in the event they should be arrested, they shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

3. The petitioners shall furnish a self bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each, along with two solvent sureties for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without seeldng leave of that Court. petitioners shall make The themselves available to the Investigating Authority as and purposes required investigation. S S 10

5. The petitioners shall not interfere with the trial, threaten or induce any witnesses for the prosecution. The petitioners shall take steps to approach the Court below for regular bail within a period of eight weeks from today. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed subject to the above terms and conditions. gab/ Sd/rn JUDQz