Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 660 (KAR)

Nalla Reddy v. State of Karnataka

2015-06-23

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2015
ORDER : K.N. Phaneendra, J. 1. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 218/2015 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) & JMFC, Manvi, for the offences U/Secs. 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 302 R/w 149, IPC. The charge-sheet papers disclose that on 27-1-2015 a person by name Syed Mahiboob who is an eye-witness to the incident lodged a complaint stating that Syed Jahangir, the deceased was granted with a house under Ashraya scheme in Kurdi village. In order to bring some building materials the said Syed Jahangir and others including the complainant had been to Ashapur village. When they were proceeding near the land of accused persons, the accused persons were rearing their cattle on the road, in spite of the driver of the tractor made attempts to scatter them by blowing the horn of the tractor, they did not go away from the road. In this context, the deceased Syed Jahangir got down from the tractor and he drove the cattle to the road side, because of this reason, the accused persons enraged themselves and started quarrelling with the said Syed Jahangir, questioning as to how dare to touch their cattle. In this context, it appears, some quarrel took place between two groups and it is in that context alleged that the petitioner No. 1 assaulted the said Syed Jahangir with a stone on the left side of the eye and other accused persons have assaulted him with stone on the chest and other parts of the body, due to which, said Syed Jahangir became restless and fell down on the road, in spite of that, all the accused have kicked the deceased with legs and caused severe injuries, who was later shifted to the hospital and there he succumbed to the injuries later. 2. There are eye-witnesses to the incident including the complainant. They have reiterated the above said factual aspects. Considering the above said facts, the trial Court has enlarged the other Accused Nos. 3 to 7 on bail vide Order Dated : 25-4-2015 in Cri. Misc. No. 222/2015 on the file of II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Raichur. The bail petition of these petitioners was rejected only on the ground that they are the important accused persons and there are certain other allegations against them. 3. 3 to 7 on bail vide Order Dated : 25-4-2015 in Cri. Misc. No. 222/2015 on the file of II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Raichur. The bail petition of these petitioners was rejected only on the ground that they are the important accused persons and there are certain other allegations against them. 3. On careful perusal of the complaint averments, there is no allegation against these petitioners that they have actually assaulted on the chest portion of the deceased, which is the root cause for the death of the deceased. There is no specific allegation so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned as to on which part of the body, he assaulted the deceased. The petitioner No. 1 (accused No. 1) has assaulted the deceased on the left side of the eye. The learned counsel for the petitioners drawn my attention to the post-mortem examination report which shows that the death was due to "respiratory failure due to blunt trauma to chest, leading to lung injury (Rt)". He also brought to my notice that there are no injuries to the head portion and it is clearly stated in the post-mortem report that the skull, vertebra and other parts of the body were intact and ribs only congested and chest portion was damaged. Looking to the above said circumstance, when the trial Court has enlarged the other accused persons against whom the allegations are that they have assaulted the deceased with stone on his chest etc., and when there are no such allegations against the petitioner and common object is invoked by the police, in such an eventuality, when other accused petitioners are released on bail, the petitioners are also entitled to be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners also drawn my attention that there was no pre-meditation or preplanning by the accused to do away with the life of the deceased and it is a sudden fight between the two groups and at this juncture, it may not be possible to say whether the offence falls u/Sec. 302, IPC or 304-II, IPC or any other lesser offence. Under the above said circumstance, agreeing with the said submission, in my opinion, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. Hence the following :- ORDER "The petition is allowed. Under the above said circumstance, agreeing with the said submission, in my opinion, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. Hence the following :- ORDER "The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in connection with C.C. No. 218/2015 arising out of Crime No. 35/2015 of Manvi Police Station, for the offences u/Ss. 143, 147,148, 504, 324, 323, 302 R/w Sec. 149, IPC, subject to following conditions: i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional committal Court or the trial Court as the case may be. ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. iii) The petitioners shall also appear before trial Court on all the future hearing dates unless prevented by any genuine cause. iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission, till the case registered against them is disposed off.