w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Mallappa & Another v/s The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad


Company & Directors' Information:- REP CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26921TN2005PTC055138

Company & Directors' Information:- G E CO PUBLIC LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36900WB1951PLC021802

Company & Directors' Information:- PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U74900KL1948PLC000930

    Criminal Petition No. 101028 of 2020

    Decided On, 25 September 2020

    At, High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

    For the Petitioners: K.M. Shiralli, Advocate. For the Respondent: Seema S. Hiva Naik, HCGP.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Criminal petition is filed U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., praying to release petitioners on bail in Annigeri P.S .Crime No.74/ 2020 registered for the offences punishable Under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 307 R/W Section 149 of IPC and Section 30 of Arms Act, 1959, pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Navalagund.)1. This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 3 under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.74/2020 of Annigeri Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 26.07.2020 at about 1.30am one Nagappa, s/o Devendrappa Harti, resident of Nagarhalli village, has filed complaint before Annigeri Police alleging that he is residing along with his family members including 3 sons at Nagarhalli village and doing agriculture. On 25.07.2020 at about 11.00 am when he was proceeding towards Navalgund on his motor bike, at that time, accused No.1/petitioner No.1 abused him near tea shop of one Devappa Joli and later, at about 6.45 pm, when he was returning back to Nagarhalli village, accused Nos.1 to 6 were standing with an intention to quarrel with the complainant. Suspecting the same, the complainant went to his home from some other way. It is further alleged that the complainant along with his sons Shivanand, his brother's son Rudrappa and some of his relatives went to the house of accused No.1/petitioner No.1 at about 8.10 pm and enquired accused No.1/petitioner No.1 why he did so on that day. Accused No.1/petitioner No.1 along with other accused together came out of their house and assaulted the complainant and others with clubs. Accused No.1 with an intention to commit murder, brought his licensed pistol and fired. The complainant escaped from the said fire shot but the said fire short hit to one person by name Sharanappa Kali, who was standing and witnessing the quarrel between the complainant and the accused. Persons gathered, separated the complainant and accused persons and the injured Sharanappa Kali was shifted to KIMS Hubballi. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.74/2020 of Annigeri Police Station against 6 persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 3. The petitioners are in judicial custody. The petitioners along with other accused filed bail application before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Crl. Misc.No.424/2020 seeking bail but the same came to be rejected by order dated 20.08.2020 in respect of the petitioners herein and was allowed in respect of other accused. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking bail.3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 25.07.2020, there was a quarrel between the complainant and accused Nos.1 to 6. the said incident has taken place in front of the house of the accused when the complainant and others came there to enquire with accused No.1. It is his further submission that, therefore, the complainant's party are aggressors. It is his further submission that Shivanand and Rudrappa, who have sustained injuries, have been discharged from the hospital and the injuries sustained by them are simple in nature. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition.5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that there is ill-will between the petitioners and the complainant's party regarding prosperity of the complainant. It is her further submission that accused Nos.1 and 3 assaulted son of the complainant-Shivanand and his brother's son- Rudrappa. It is her further submission that both the injured have been discharged from the hospital. It is her further submission that investigation is still in progress and if the petitioners are granted bail, they will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. With this, she prayed to dismiss the petition.6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the FIR, the complaint and the discharge certificate of Sharanappa Kali.7. On looking to the averments made in the complaint, the complainant and others came near the house of accused No.1 and at that time, there was a free fight between the complainant and the accused and two persons by name Shivanand and Rudrappa sustained injuries and the said injuries are simple in nature and have been discharged from the hospital. Accused No.1 brought pistol and fired, which hit to a 3rd person by name Sharanappa Kali, who was witnessing the galata. The offences alleged are not punishable with death.8. It is well settled that matters to be considered in an application for bail are:"(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;(ii) nature and gravity of the charge;(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses, may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused."9. In a decision reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of Uttara Pradesh and Another, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:"A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society."10. In the present case, investigation is still in progress. The petitioners are not habitual offenders and there are no criminal antecedents. Petitioner No.1 has also filed a complaint and it is registered in Crime No.75/2020 of Annigeri Police Station against the complainant and others. Hence, there is a case and counter case. The petitioners are the resident of the address shown in the cause title and the same is not disputed. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioners are likely to cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:ORDERThe petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 shall be released on bail in Crime No.74/2020 of Annigeri Police Station subject to the following condition

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

s:i) The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. Due to COVID-19, the petitioners are permitted to furnish surety within two months. If circumstances arise, the jurisdictional Court is permitted to extend the period for furnishing surety.ii) The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 shall not indulge in hampering the investigation and tampering the prosecution witnesses.iii) The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 shall mark their attendance in the jurisdictional police station on every first Sunday of the calendar month between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm for a period of three months or till filing of the final report, whichever is earlier.iv) The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 shall appear before the Court regularly and co- operate in speedy disposal of the case.
O R