Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 128 (KAR)

Ajjappa @ Bhimappa v. State Of Karnataka

2020-01-14

ASHOK S.KINAGI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.Misc.No.2630/2019. 2. The case of the prosecution that, on 22.11.2019 at about 10.00 p.m. the complainant with his wife and children was returning from Janata Plot on his motorcycle after attending the function at his relatives house, at that time, it is alleged that when the complainant returning on his way home near Patil Galli of Peeranwadi, the petitioner came from opposite direction on his motorcycle and on seeing him, the complainant gave him a side and he proceeded. It is further alleged that, petitioner came to the complainants house and started abusing him in filthy language and it is also alleged that petitioner brought knife from his house and injured the complainant and also one of the relative of complainant (Suresh Gasti) who had come to pacify them. The complainant and Suresh started making hue and cry. By hearing the same, the villagers 1) Shankar Parashram Saibannavar 2) Prashant Vittal Patil 3) Ashok Shetteppa Patil 4) Babu Mallappa Beeranavar and father of complaint came and pacified the ongoing fight. The petitioner challenged the complainant to finish him off if he meets him after some day. So saying he went away from the spot. The injured were shifted to the District Hospital and later he was shifted to KLE Hospital for further treatment. Thus, on the basis of the complainants allegations, a case was registered against the petitioner in crime No.172/2019 for the offense punishable under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of IPC. 3. The petitioner was arrested on 22.11.2019. The petitioner filed bail application before the trial Court and the trial Court rejected the said application vide order dated 11.12.2019. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner has been implicated in the case by using political pressure and is only earning member of the family. He seeks to allow the petition. 6. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner has been implicated in the case by using political pressure and is only earning member of the family. He seeks to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP submits that there are prima facie material against the petitioner for commission of the offence and the investigation is in progress. At this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper or hamper the prosecution witness or he may abscond. Hence, she seeks for dismissal of the petition. 7. Perused the records. The petitioner has produced injury certificate and wound certificate. By perusing the said certificates, it does not disclose any history of injuries on the complainant. Further, the said certificate does not clear whether the complainant or accused sustained injuries in the incident in question. Perusal of the records, it reveals that the alleged incident has occurred on the spur or heat of the moment. To attract the offences, it require intention, preparation and motive, but these elements are absent in the case on hand. The injured who was admitted in the hospital are already discharged from the hospital. As such, there is no life threat to attract Section 307 of IPC. The petitioner is in custody since 22.11.2019. The Honble Apex Court held in various decisions that bail is rule jail is exception. Keeping the petitioner in the jail is amounts to pre-trial custody is amounts to violation of life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence the following order: The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with crime No.172/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of IPC of Belagavi Rural Police Station, subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. ii) The petitioner shall not indulge or hamper the investigation or tamper the prosecution witnesses. iii) The petitioner shall cooperative with the Investigating Officer and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. ii) The petitioner shall not indulge or hamper the investigation or tamper the prosecution witnesses. iii) The petitioner shall cooperative with the Investigating Officer and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission, till the charge sheet is filed. v) The petitioners shall attend the Court on every date of hearing.