Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1213 (KAR)

HANUMAPPA ALIAS HANUMANTHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2017-09-04

BUDIHAL R.B.

body2017
ORDER : Budihal R.B., J. This is the petition filed by the petitioner-accused No. 3, under section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking to release him on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 307, 392 read with section 34 of IPC, registered in Hanumasagar P.S. Crime No. 18/2017 in Koppal district. After completing the investigation charge-sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Sections 364, 307, 392 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments, one Smt. Bagamma is the complainant; she has stated that she worked as a coolie in the garden of accused No. 1 Laxmibai and accused No. 1 requested her to advance some money towards farming; the complainant advanced about Rs. 2,70,000/- at different times and on demand to pay the same, it was being postponed. On 4.3.2017 the complainant demanded accused No. 1 to repay her loan amount and accused No. 1 said to have been told to come on the next day; accordingly on 5.3.2017 the complainant went to the house of accused No. 1 and she was asked to accompany her to Chandalingeshwar Temple and there accused No. 1 will give her money and also gave her a new saree to wear; the complainant and the accused came to Amingad in a bus and accused No. 2 and another person came in a car; all of them went to Chandalingeshwar temple around 4.00 p.m.; they had darshan of the deity; when the complainant told to go back to the village, the accused No. 1 said that they have to meet a priest and waited till 8.00 p.m.; thereafter they started to assault on her face, back, chest and she also closed her mouth and the complainant lost her consciousness and when she regain consciousness, she was in a water less tank sustained injuries on hands, neck, eyes and teeth had fallen and also her earrings, bormal and cash of Rs. 1,000/- were missing; at a dawn she cried for help, the priest and three more persons came and rescued her and taken her to the Government Hospital and alleged that on 5.7.2017 she was taken by accused to Chandalingeshwar Temple, therein she was assaulted and these persons robbed her gold ornaments; on the basis of said complaint a case came to be registered for the said offences. 3. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 3 made submission that even though earlier the present petitioner approached this Court, his petition came to be rejected, but however liberty was given to the petitioner accused No. 3 that after completing the investigation the petitioner can approach the appropriate Court. The learned counsel made the submission that after charge-sheet is filed, the petitioner accused No. 3 again approached the Sessions Court by filing regular bail application, which also came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel submitted that, accused No. 1 against whom serious allegations are made that it is accused No. 1 who throttled the complainant, this Court allowed the bail petition of accused No. 1 and granted bail to the accused No. 1. Hence he submitted that now investigation is completed and the charge-sheet is filed. The petitioner accused No. 3 may be admitted to regular bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition stating that looking to the averments in the complaint and also other charge-sheet materials, there is also role played by the petitioner and hence the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. 6. Perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the order passed by this Court dated 10.8.2017 in Crl.P. No. 101623/2017 in respect of accused No. 1. After filing the charge-sheet this Court granted bail to the accused No. 1. Looking to the complaint averments, the complainant gave the amount of two lakh and odd rupees to accused No. 1 Laxmibai and even looking to the further allegations, when the complainant was brought to Chandalingeshwar Temple, it is accused No. 1 who throttled the complainant and tried to cause her death. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, at the complaint stage name of the present petitioner was not mentioned either in the complaint or in the FIR. It was stated that another person was also present. But however while filing the charge sheet it is made clear by the prosecution that the present petitioner is also involved in committing the offence. It was stated that another person was also present. But however while filing the charge sheet it is made clear by the prosecution that the present petitioner is also involved in committing the offence. The allegations in the complaint and other charge-sheet materials go to show that the petitioner and the accused No. 2 caught hold the complainant and it is accused No. 1 who throttled. Therefore even looking to the over tact, the allegation that accused No. 3 caught hold the complainant. Now investigation of the case is completed, charge-sheet is also filed, but this Court considered the entire merits of the case while considering the bail application of accused No. 1. Hence looking to the materials, at this stage, the petitioner-accused No. 3 can be admitted to bail by imposing reasonable conditions. 7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner-accused No. 3 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No. 18/2017 of Hanumasagar Police Station, in Koppal district, registered for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions: i. Petitioner has to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and furnish one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court. ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. iii. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.