Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 970 (KAR)

T. Opanna Patil v. State of Karnataka

2022-07-27

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed by accused No.20 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.166/2022 of Kakati Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity). 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 19.06.2022 one Smt. Pooja W/o Satish Patil lodged a complaint before Kakati Police Station, Belagavi stating that she is resident of Goundwad village residing along with her husband by name Satish Patil (deceased). That her husband is the owner of Medical shop situated at Bauxite road, Belagavi and they have two children. It is further stated that on 18.09.2022 at about 8:30 p.m, complainant along with one Sonam Patil and other women had assembled at Lakshmi Temple for meeting in regard to women association and that one Yadav Yallappa Patil of their village has a provisional store situated near Bhairavnath temple. It is further stated that accused No.2- Aranav Anand Kutre came in his Innova car to park it near the provisional store belonging to Yadav and at that time, Yadav told the accused No.2-Aranav not to park his car near his shop since his shop is still open and further asked him to park it once the shop is closed. Due to which, said Aranav Kutre-accused No.2 picked up quarrel with him and they both started abusing each other loudly. It is further stated that on hearing the noise, accused No.1-Anand Kutre, accused No.5-Shashikala Kutre and accused No.6-Laxmi Venkat Kutre came out even the complainant came near the said provisional store along with Sonam Yadav Patil, Suman Gangaram Patil, Leela Gundu Pingat, Rekha Madhu Pawar, Roopa Bahurao Pawar and at that time, the said accused No.2-Aranav Kutre and accused No.1-Anand Kutre were quarreling with Yadav Patil in connection with parking of car. It is further submitted that the complainant and others tried to console but they did not stop quarreling. It is further submitted that the complainant and others tried to console but they did not stop quarreling. It is further stated that at that time, the other accused persons i.e, accused No.9-Venkat Kutre, accused No.10-Siddappa Mutagekar, Accused No.11-Daulath Mutagekar, accused No.3- Jayappa Niljakar, accused No.2-Surekha Nilajakar, accused No.8-Sanjana Nilajakar, accused No.4-Mahantesh Nilajakar, accused No.15-Lakan Nilajakar, accused No.12-Vasanth Patil, accused No.13-Sanjay Kutre, accused No.14-Sangeeta Kutre, accused No.16-Kedari Patil, accused No.17-Prema Patil, accused No.18-Bharath Patil, accused No.19-Maruti Patil, accused No.20-Topanna Patil(Petitioner herein), accused No.21-Gajanan Birje, accused No.22-Parashuram Mutagekar, accused No.23- Kallappa Astekar, accused No.24-Mahesh Sambrekar and accused No.25-Basavanth Mutagekar together started quarreling with Yadav Patil. It is further submitted that the complainant and their association of women tried to console them again and at that time, it was about 9:00 p.m. It is further stated that at that time, the husband of complainant-Satish S/o Rajendra Patil (deceased) also came near them and enquired and to which, the complainant revealed about the incident. At that time, her husband-Satish (deceased) told them not to fight and further told that if they have any complaints to approach Police Station and lodge a complaint and to which, accused No.1-Anand Kutre, accused No.2-Aranav Kutre and 22 other persons picked up quarrel asking him to lodge a complaint and they would look after the consequences and it is further alleged that one Nandu Siddappa Nilajkar (injured) came to console and then, said Anand-accused No.1 and Aranav-accused No.2 started abusing Satish (deceased) stating that he would always interfere in all the matters and that he would come to educate us and later told accused No.5-Shashikala to get the knife and accused No.5-Shashikala brought the knife and gave it to Anand-accused No.1. It is further alleged that later, accused No.1-Anand and other accused in anger told that let us not leave the Satish today and would kill him and at that time, accused No.1-Anand assaulted Satish with knife on his back and with the same knife, again he went to stab him at that time, the Nandu(injured) tried to stop the accused No.1- Anand to which, the accused No.1-Anand threatened him with dire consequences and caused injuries to the hands of said Nandu(injured). It is further stated that thereafter one Jayappa Bhairu Neelajkar- accused No.3 stabbed deceased Satish with the knife which he had brought along with him by saying that let us not spare him today. It is further stated that thereafter one Jayappa Bhairu Neelajkar- accused No.3 stabbed deceased Satish with the knife which he had brought along with him by saying that let us not spare him today. It is further stated that the complainant tried to rescue her husband Satish and when she went near him, accused No.7-Surekha Nilajakar and accused No.8-Sanjana Nilajakar held her hair and threw her on the ground. At that time, Sonam and Yadav together told that let us save him and asked one Umesh to bring Van of Mahesh Pingat and thereafter took him to KLE hospital and later he succumbed to injuries in the hospital. It is further stated that earlier all the accused persons together had assaulted her husband deceased Satish Patil in connection with the dispute of land of Goundwad Temple and complaint has been registered before the APMC Police Station. The said complaint came to be registered in Kakati Police Station under Crime No.166/2022 against 25 accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 323 of IPC. The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.20, apprehending his arrest has filed Crl.Misc.No.918/2022 seeking anticipatory bail. The same came to be rejected by the learned II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, by order dated 08.07.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. It would be the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no overtact alleged against the petitioner except his presence and he is quarreling with deceased. It is his further submission that the overtact are alleged against the other accused i.e, accused Nos.1 to 5, who stated to have committed murder of the deceased Satish Patil. It is his further submission that the petitioner is a senior citizen, aged about 76 years suffering from diabetic, hypertension and heart related issues. It is his further submission that petitioner is ready to cooperate with the police officer in the investigation and he is ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to undertake not to enter the village till the case registered is disposed of. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to undertake not to enter the village till the case registered is disposed of. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that investigation is still in progress and averments of the complaint clearly reveal presence of the petitioner and quarreling with the deceased. The role of this petitioner has to be ascertained only after filing of the charge sheet. It is his further submission that there are other two cases registered in Crime No.87/2020 of APMC Police Station and in Crime No.80/2021 of Kakati Police station. It is his further submission that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there are chances of he committing other similar offences. With these, he prays to reject the bail petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the FIR, complaint and order passed by learned II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi. 7. The accusation leveled against the petitioner is that, he was present on the spot at the time of incident along with other accused, who quarreling with the deceased. There are no overtact alleged against the present petitioner of assaulting and killing the deceased and assaulting the injured Nandu. The petitioner is a senior citizen, aged about 76 years and the documents produced reveal that petitioner is suffering from diabetic, hypertension and heart related issues. Therefore, looking to the age and ailment with which the petitioner is suffering, he is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail with stringent conditions. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioner is likely to cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for grant of anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for grant of anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner/accused No.20, he is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.166/2022 of Kakati Police Station, subject to the following conditions: i. Petitioner/accused No.20 shall execute personal bond for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. ii. The petitioner/accused No.20 shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today and furnish surety. iii. The petitioner/accused No.2 shall attend the jurisdictional police station on 1 s t and 3 r d Sunday of every month between 10:00am and 2:00 p.m and mark his presence for a period of three months or till filing of the final report whichever is earlier. iv. The petitioner/accused No.2 shall Co-operate in the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required. v. The petitioner/accused No.20 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. vi. The petitioner/accused No.20 shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police. vii. The petitioner/accused No.20 shall not enter the limit of Goundwad village till disposal of the case registered against him.