Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 557 (KAR)

Mallikarjun v. State of Karnataka

2015-06-02

G.NARENDRA

body2015
ORDER : G. Narendra, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum at Chikodi. The petitioners before this Court are accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 in Crime No. 258/2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 504 r/w 149 of IPC and later the provision of Section 302 of IPC came to be added for the death of one Ajja Balakrishna. The case of the petitioners is that they were passing in the lane behind the house of the complainant and the accused/petitioner is stated to have observed the wife of the complainant answering nature call. The complainant informed of the same and agitated by the same, they have intercepted the petitioners-accused. 2. Thereupon, a quarrel ensued between the parties and in that quarrel Ajja Balakrishna was assaulted on his head with the club, as a result of which he has suffered head injury and later succumbed in the hospital. Based on tins incident, a complaint and counter complaint have been filed. The petitioners have also suffered minor injuries. 3. In the above facts and circumstances, the question that arise for consideration of this Court is: "Whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail?" 4. It is submitted by the petitioners' counsel that me petitioners were totally innocent and even as per the complaint, there is no overt acts alleged against them, which has caused the death of the said Ajja Balakrishna. 5. It is submitted on by of the petitioners that they were passing behind the house of the complainant, when they were intercepted by the complainant, his brother-in-laws, Sidram, Suresh and Chandrakant asked the reason for the petitioners quarrelling with one Manjunath and petitioners referred as to how they can ask them. It was alleged that Manjya has seen one Shwetha, while answering nature call and after saying so they unilaterally started assaulting the accused with stone and sticks. The petitioners would further pointed out that even as per the complaint, overt acts alleged against the petitioners is that they have assaulted one Suresh and Sidram on their hands and legs and had not perpetrated any act which caused me death of the said Ajja Balakrishna. The petitioners would further pointed out that even as per the complaint, overt acts alleged against the petitioners is that they have assaulted one Suresh and Sidram on their hands and legs and had not perpetrated any act which caused me death of the said Ajja Balakrishna. The petitioners' counsel would further submit that they were provoked into resorting to violence because of the initial aggression by the opposite party. The petitioners' counsel would further submit that the Court below has not at all appreciated the fact that the deceased was the aggressor. He would also point out the finding of the Court below, wherein, it has been held that none of the petitioners, in both the petitions concerned, had assembled with an intention to do away with the life of the others. It is further submitted by the petitioners' counsel that the alleged injured have been discharged from the hospital sometime ago and mere is no threat to their life. He would also submit that there is no previous criminal antecedents to the petitioners and they are all respectable citizens and are agriculturist by profession. He would further submit that they are the sole earning members of the family and their families have been suffering on account of their incarceration since December, 2014. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader placed before this Court the PM report in respect of the deceased Ajja Balakrishna, wherein it has been opinioned that the death is due to head injury suffered as a result of blunt force. He would also place the wound certificate in respect of the brother-in-laws of the complainant i.e. Sidram and Suresh, who are alleged to have suffered injuries as a result of assault by the petitioners. A perusal of the same would show that the said Sidram has suffered one grievous injury and two simple injuries. The said Suresh has suffered simple injuries. This corroborates the version of the complaint also. 7. Admittedly, this is a group clash, which is an instantaneous one and is not a premeditated or with previous enmity. In the quarrel, it is alleged that the petitioners have assaulted the brother-in-law of the complainant with then hands and with stones and clubs. Unfortunately, one Ajja Balakrishna lost his life. No overt acts is attributed against these petitioners which can in any manner relate to the death of the said Ajja Balakrishna. In the quarrel, it is alleged that the petitioners have assaulted the brother-in-law of the complainant with then hands and with stones and clubs. Unfortunately, one Ajja Balakrishna lost his life. No overt acts is attributed against these petitioners which can in any manner relate to the death of the said Ajja Balakrishna. It is also admitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. It is also admitted that the injured persons have recovered and are out of hospital. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are en-I titled for the relief as prayed for. 9. Accordingly, the above petition is allowed. The respondent police are directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail, in the event of the arrest of petitioners subject to the following conditions: "i. The petitioners shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. ii. The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence nor try to influence the witnesses. iii. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without the prior permission of the trial Court. iv. In the event of petitioners violated conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to approach this Court for revocation of this order. v. The observation in the above case are made for the limited purpose of considering the bail application and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the above observation and shall independently consider and dispose of the case on merits."