Bhimappa v. Arjun & Ors.

(By Shri. A.G.Mulawadimath. Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka, (Through Nesargi P.S.) Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad. . . .Petitioners . . . Respondent (By Shri. Vinayak S. Kulkami, Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 ol the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking that the petitioners be enlarged on bail in Nesargi P.S. Crime No.11012010 for the offences punishable under Sections 143. 147. 148. 302, 307. 326, 324, 341, 504, 506, 114, 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

2. The facts leading up to this case are as follows: S 3 One Shoba. daughter of l.akkappa. was herding cattle grazing on her land. on 30.10.2010. When one Ajjappa ‘a. Bhimarai Laxman Biranna ar and ‘ithal Bhimappa Kora i. are said to ha’ e teased her and got fresh ith her. She came home and complained that there was an attempt to molest her b> the said persons. The complainant — Mahantesh I lanmant Koravi. along with his father — Hanumant Tukkappa Koravi. uncles — Mahadev Tukkappa Koravi. Lakkappa Tukkappa Koravi and the brother of the complainant — Yallappa Laxman Koravi, his father-in-law — Sadeppa Mallappa Chikkarai, ere therefore. proceeding to the Nesaragi Police Station to lodge a complaint the incident. When they were so proceeding near Nalaganti Chakkadi road, about 17 persons. including the present petitioners. said to have been armed ith deadly weapons and stones. had stopped them and abused them and started to assault them. As a result of which. one of the complainanfs uncles died. the assault sas attributed to accused No.1. There ‘vere allegations of overt acts against other petitioners as sell and in so far as the other injured in the 4 scuffle are concerned. i’his is the subject matter of the compliant lodged by Mahantesh. shich is registered as Crime No.110 2010.

3. On the other hand one l.axman Koravi. had in turn lodged a counter compliant about the same incident but on a different version. ii was alleged that after the incident complained of by Shoba. her family had come and stoned the houses of the second petitioner, Laxrnan and others. It is in this background, that when the family members of Laxman and others were on their wa> to the Nesargi Police Station to report the incident, they were attacked by the other group consisting of Mahantesh and others. It is in this background, that a counter complaint in Crime No. I 11/2010. “as also registered.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners who are the accused in Crime No.1 102010. ould submit that in so far as the complaint filed by Laxman is concerned, the accused have been enlarged on bail. Whereas the bail petition filed by the present petitioners and others along with l..axman have been rejected. It is in that background. that I.axman and others along w ith accused No.1. had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.10078 2011 while this Court had taken note of circumstances that it is a situation of case and counter case. Therefore, it would be a subject matter of a fUll fledged trial to determine, as to who was the aggressor and who the ictim. Therefore, pending trial the petitioners were held entitled to bail except accused No.1. against whom there were allegations of overt acts. resulting in the death of’ the complainants uncle Mahadev. Thereibre. by a parity of reasoning. the learned counsel would seek that the present petition be allowed and the other accused against whom also there are no serious overt acts and as it is the matter determined whether the petitioners had been attacked and were not the aggressors. the petitioners would be entitled to be enlarged on bail.

5. The learned Government Pleader. on the other hand. would seriously oppose the petition and would submit is the common intention that is material and not S 6 necessarily the in olvement of each of the petitioners and o ert acts or otherwise alleged against them, which ought to be the consideration in enlarging the petitioners on bail. The loser Court had exercised that discretion and having held that on the basis of material on record, it could be said prima facie. that the petitioners ere indeed the aggressors and had rightly rejected the hail application. I lence, is no warrant consideration of the present petition. notwithstanding that the Criminal Petition No.10 1 78’201 I. has been allowed in part.

6. 1 laying regard abo e circumstances, this Court ha’ ing exercised its discretion in variance sith the order of the Court belos and having enlarged some of the accused on bail, by a parity of reasoning. The present petitioners would also be entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. The learned Go’ eminent Pleader is however, right in his contention that the common intention is material and not necessarily the degree of involvement of each of the accused, S 7 which would determine the involvement of the accused. This however, would be the subject matter of a full-fledged trial.

8. Having regard to the circumstances of the present case on hand, which involves a case and a counter case and that the incident occurred on account of the families, having been provoked on the allegations of a female having been teased by the members of the other family. It would be seen that the incident had occurred in a tit of passion. which had excalated and involved several of the accused. Accordingly, petitioners are held entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: 1) 2) They shall furnish personal bonds for a sum of?20..000/- each. with three solvent sureties for like sums, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They shall make themselves available to the Investigation Officer as and when required for the purposes of investigation. 8 3) [hey shall not leave the jurisdiction ol trial Court ithout seeking lea\ e of Court. 4) 5) They shall not seek to induce or threaten the prosecution \ itnesses. They shall attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail subject to the Court granting exemption for good and valid reason. Sd! JUDGE Rsh