Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1256 (KAR)

Peerasab Rajesab Chikkur v. State of Karnataka

2022-09-22

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 challenging the order dtd. 10/8/2022 passed in Kerur Police Station Crime No.128/2022 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, whereunder the bail application filed by the appellants for the offences punishable under Ss. 143 , 147 , 148 , 323 , 324 , 326 , 307 , 109 , 504 and 506 read with Sec. 1149 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ' IPC ', for brevity) and Ss. 3(1)(r) (s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC & ST Act ', for brevity) came to be rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State. Respondent No.2 who was present physically on the previous date had prayed not to grant bail to the appellants. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, one Laxman Ramappa Kattimani has filed the complaint stating that his brother Arunkumar Kattimani is actively involved in an organization and that has enraged the local Muslim community and hence they had threatened him on several occasions and on 1/7/2022 when the said Arunkmar Kattimani was protesting against the murder of Kanhaiya Lal, the complainant learnt that the Muslim community has devised a plan to commit the murder of his brother Arunkumar Kattimani. It is further stated that, on 6/7/2022 when the complainant reached Kerur bus stand, he found that, on the main road in front of Ganesh Hotel, all the accused Nos.1 to 31 were abusing his brother and another in filthy language and during which accused No.1 has assaulted the complainant's brother on his head with axe, accused No.2 has assaulted with axe on his back, accused No.3 assaulted on his left leg joint with iron rod, accused No.4 assaulted on his head with iron rod, accused No.5 has assaulted on his back with an axe. Accused No.6 abetted her son accused No.4-Mousin to finish him and gave chopper. Accused No.6 abetted her son accused No.4-Mousin to finish him and gave chopper. When the complainant came to rescue, accused No.17 assaulted with rod on his head and made an attempt to murder him(complainant) and the others have assaulted on his stomach, back, chest and caused internal injuries and at that time, when Yamanoor Chungi came to rescue him, accused Nos.19 and 23 have assaulted him with iron rod on his head and other accused assaulted on face, stomach and back with hands and abused touching the caste and at that time, one Mallappa Sulekere and others pacified the quarrel and the quarrel took place at about 5:00pm and the injured were taken to Kerur Government Hospital and thereafter they were referred to Kerodi hospital, Bagalkote. The said complaint came to be registered in Kerur Police Station Crime No.128/2022 for the aforesaid offences. The appellants came to be arrested on 7/7/2022 and they are in judicial custody. The appellants filed bail application and it came to be rejected by the impugned order dtd. 10/8/2022 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote. The said order is challenged in the instant appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 would contend that in respect of the very said incident another crime has been registered in Kerur Police Station Crime No.126/2022 against 10 accused persons and the said complaint has been filed by one Head Constable by name H.B.Yadabadagi. The present FIR registered on the basis of the complaint of one Sri Laxman Ramappa Kattimani is the second FIR in respect of the same incident and therefore, it is abuse of process of law. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Or s. V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2002 Live Law (SC) 731 . It is his further submission that, appellant No.1/accused No.1 was not on the spot at the time of the incident and as per the certificate issued by the President, Pattan Panchayat, Kerur, he was engaged in digging pit in graveyard at Kerur between 2:00pm to 7:00pm. It is his further submission that, appellant No.4/accused No.5 is a student studying B.Com and if he is continued in the prison, it will affect his education career. It is his further submission that, appellant No.4/accused No.5 is a student studying B.Com and if he is continued in the prison, it will affect his education career. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the documents which are produced by the appellants' counsel in this appeal were not produced before the Sessions Court at the time of passing the impugned order and therefore, they cannot be considered in this appeal. It is his further submission that investigation is still in progress. The Investigating Officer has collected the wound certificates of Arunkumar Kattimani and Laxman Ramappa Kattimani and they have sustained grievous injuries. The statement of all the 3 injured have been recorded which reveal the overt act of each of the appellants. There is recovery of the weapons used by the appellants/accused to assault the injured. It is his further contention that the appellants have not taken up the contention of registration of multiple FIRs before the Sessions Court and therefore, they cannot raise that contention in this appeal. The offences alleged against the appellants are heinous offenses and one of the offences is punishable with imprisonment for life. The learned Sessions Judge considering all these aspects has passed the impugned order which does not call for interference by this Court. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding registration of multiple FIRs cannot be considered in this appeal, as he has not taken up the said contention before the Sessions Court. The appellants are at liberty to challenge the registration of multiple FIRs, if they are so adviced. There are specific averments in the complaint that these appellants assaulted Arunkumar Kattimani with deadly weapons and caused injuries. The wound certificate of Sri. Arunkumar Kattimani reveal that he has sustained 8 injuries which corresponds to the overt act alleged against the appellants. Investigation is still in progress. One of the offences alleged is Sec. 307 of IPC which is punishable with imprisonment for life. Considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge, has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellants by the impugned order. Investigation is still in progress. One of the offences alleged is Sec. 307 of IPC which is punishable with imprisonment for life. Considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge, has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellants by the impugned order. Merely on the basis of the certificate issued by the President of Pattan Panchayat, Kerur, regarding presence of appellant No.1/accused No.1 at graveyard on the date and time of the incident, his plea of alibi cannot be considered at this stage. The appellants have not made out any grounds for interfering with the impugned order. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.