Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 402 (KAR)

Siddappa v. State Of Karnataka

2020-02-12

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners/accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 have sought for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') in Crime No.146/2019 of Yadgiri Rural Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'IPC'). 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, on 04-11-2019, at about 7:00 p.m., when the complainant and his few relatives were sitting in front of their house, at that time, fourteen accused including the present petitioners who are accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 approached them, after forming themselves into an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons like stones, sticks, iron rods, axe, etc and uttering that since the complainant and his family members are disputing with respect to the land and also on the said day, they had beaten their dog for no reasons, assaulted the complainant and his family members. The complaint further alleges that in the said process, the complainant and several people who were present also sustained injuries. The complainant also alleges that the accused have threatened him and his relatives that they will take away their lives. The said complaint was registered in Crime No.146/2019 in the respondent Police Station for the alleged offences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that due to the previous enmity, the complainant and his family members, joining together have lodged a false complaint against the accused. He further submitted that even if the alleged complaint is taken on its face value, it only makes out a case of trivial altercation between the parties. He further submitted that since the investigation has already been completed, the apprehension of the accused is also not warranted. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader in his statement of objections as well as in his argument submitted that the petitioners have committed a heinous offence of attempting to kill the father and mother of the complainant and in the process, they have used deadly weapons like axe and inflicted injuries upon several of the charge sheeted witnesses. As such, considering the nature of the offence and circumstances of the case, the petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. As such, considering the nature of the offence and circumstances of the case, the petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he submitted that the investigation has been concluded and the charge sheet has been filed. 5. A perusal of the charge sheet materials placed before this Court, at this stage, and prima facie would go to show that, with respect to a trivial matter of a dog making some nuisance in front of the house of the complainant, the alleged incident has occurred. It is alleged in the complaint that keeping in front the alleged act of one of the members of the complainants family, beating the dog belonging to the family of the accused, the accused who are charge sheeted, forming themselves into an unlawful assembly are alleged to have assaulted the complainant and his other relatives with weapons like axe, stones, etc. The complainant has given the details of the incident as to who assaulted whom and with what weapon, in his complaint itself. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader has produced the copies of the Wound Certificate of the injured persons for the perusal of the Court. A perusal of the same would go to show that, except the alleged injured Sanna Sabayya, others had sustained simple injuries on the other parts of their bodies except their head, whereas Sanna Sabayya had sustained an injury on his head. The complainant alleges that it is accused No.1 Siddappa, who assaulted Sanna Sabayya with an axe inflicting bleeding injury on the head of his father Sanna Sabayya. The investigating Officer claims to have recovered the said weapon used in the commission of the crime at the instance of the said accused. In such a situation, I am of the view that even though the petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 may deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail, but not the petitioner No.1 who is accused No.1 in the charge sheet and apprehension of the prosecution about the non-availability of the petitioners for the trial in case of their enlargement on bail, can be checked by imposing reasonable conditions. 7. 7. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER [I] The Criminal Petition filed by petitioner No.1 Siddappa S/o. Sabanna Medar, aged 20 years, resident of Mundaragi village, Yadgiri Taluk and District, is dismissed; [II] The petition of the petitioners, i.e. petitioner No.2 - Mahipal, S/o. Sabanna Medar, Aged about 27 years, petitioner No.3- Sharanappa S/o. Sabanna Medar, aged about 35 years, and petitioner No.4 - Mallikarjun S/o. Dodda Sabanna Medar, aged about 30 years, all residents of Mundaragi village, Yadgiri Taluk and District, is allowed; [III] In case the Police apprehends the petitioners No.2, 3 and 4, in their Station Crime No.146/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, they be enlarged on bail, subject to the conditions that: (i) The accused/petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with two local solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging authority/Court. (ii) No single surety can extend his suretyship to more than two accused; (iii) The accused/petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 shall voluntarily appear before the jurisdictional Magistrate before whom the case is pending, within ten days from today. (iv) The accused/petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses and materials in any manner. (v) The accused/petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 to give in writing about the change in their address, if any, to the Trial Court as and when such change occurs and obtain an acknowledgement in that regard. (vi) Petitioner No.1 Siddappa S/o. Sabanna Medar, aged 20 years, resident of Mundaragi village, Yadgiri Taluk and District, to surrender before the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class (Jr.Dn.), Yadgiri, where the criminal case is pending, within ten days from today and in case he moves any application for regular bail, the Trial Court to dispose of the said application at the earliest and strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in todays order.