Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 22 (KAR)

Sopan s/o Kondiba Pandre v. State of Karnataka

2016-01-06

ARAVIND KUMAR

body2016
ORDER : Aravind Kumar, J. Petitioners have been arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 5 in Crime No. 178/2015 (C.C. No. 3216/2015) registered by Rural Police Station, Vijayapur for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned Advocate appearing that petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and with a view to harass them, they have been falsely implicated and they are permanent residents of Baratagi L.T. No. 5 of Vijayapur taluk and they possess moveable and immovable property and they are the only earning members of their respective families and as such they be enlarged on bail and these are ready and willing to abide by any conditions which may be imposed on them by this Court. 3. Learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed grant of bail contending that accused persons have committed heinous crime and at the time of pacifying warring members of group by deceased, eye-witnesses have also sustained injuries and as such there is likelihood of petitioners posing threat to the witnesses if they are enlarged on bail. It is also contended that accused would indulge in similar acts, if they are enlarged on bail. Hence, he prays for rejection of petition. 4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, it would indicate that one Smt. Sunita W/o Gundappa lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police on 26.05.2015 stating thereunder that housed of the complainant and accused persons are adjacent to each other and one of their relatives Sri. Srimant Kondiba had gone to attend the nature's call near the wall abutting the of house of the complainant and at that point of time accused No. 4 - Raju had assaulted him and the same was questioned by son of Sri. Srimant Kondiba. It is further stated that at about 9.00 p.m. all the accused persons picked up quarrel with Sri.Santosh Sulla and deceased Gundappa relative of Sri.Santosh Sulla had gone there to pacify fighting groups and on seeing said Sri. Gundappa accused persons abused him in filthy language and assaulted him by means of big stone by hitting on right side of his head and accused No. 4 - Raju assaulted to the said Sri. Gundappa accused persons abused him in filthy language and assaulted him by means of big stone by hitting on right side of his head and accused No. 4 - Raju assaulted to the said Sri. Gundappa by means of iron rod and as such he sustained bleeding injuries and thereafter succumbed to the injuries sustained. 5. Perusal of records would indicate that the overt acts alleged against accused Nos. 1 and 5 are similar. Contents of complaint would disclose that there was no assault by accused Nos. 1 and 5 on the deceased but they had allegedly assaulted Sri. Santosh Sulla. As such no overt act can be attributed against accused persons for the cause of death of Sri. Gundappa at this stage. While considering the prayer for grant of bail, this Court would only examine whether prima facie case is established for granting bail. Credibility and reliability of statement of eye-witnesses cannot be gone into and same can be tested only during trial. There is no specific overt act attributed against petitioner No.2 with regard to assault by use of lethal weapons like stone, iron rod, firewood etc. As could be seen from contents of complaint and statement of witnesses, charge-sheet has already been filed. As to whether petitioner No. 2 (accused No. 5) has committed alleged offence has to be thrashed out at the time of trial and merits of the case cannot be gone into at this stage. That apart, accused No. 1 against whom similar allegation as made against petitioner No. 2 (accused No. 5) had already been granted anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional Court in Crl. Misc. No. 987/2015. Thus, even on the ground of parity also petitioner No. 2 i.e., accused No. 5 is entitled for being enlarged on bail. 6. Insofar as petitioner No. 1 (accused No. 2) is concerned, as could be seen from contents of the complaint, allegations made against accused No. 3 as well as accused No. 2 are similar in nature and accused No. 3 has already been granted anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional District and Sessions Judge in Cril. Misc. No. 1112/2015 by order dated 18.12.2015. As could be seen from allegation made by the complainant against petitioner No. 1, i.e. accused No. 2 as well as accused No. 3 in the alleged incident, he had assaulted deceased by means of fisticuffs being heaped on his body. Misc. No. 1112/2015 by order dated 18.12.2015. As could be seen from allegation made by the complainant against petitioner No. 1, i.e. accused No. 2 as well as accused No. 3 in the alleged incident, he had assaulted deceased by means of fisticuffs being heaped on his body. As per contents of charge-sheet except the said act there is no allegation forthcoming against petitioner No. 1. As to whether petitioner No. 1 (accused No. 2) had committed alleged offence or not has to be thrashed out at the time of trial. Hence, petitioner No. 1 is also entitled for being enlarged on bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (a) Criminal Petition is hereby allowed. (b) Petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in C.C. No. 3216/2015 pending on the file of JMFC Court, Vijayapur, on petitioners executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court and subject to following conditions: (i) Petitioners shall not tamper or terrorise prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever; (ii) Petitioners shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional police on first day of; every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till conclusion of trial. (iii) Petitioners shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in future; (iv) Petitioners without seeking exemption shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all dates of hearing except under exceptional circumstances; (v) If petitioners violate any of the conditions, prosecution would be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail; Order accordingly. Petition allowed.