Dismissed

Shrisail S/O Parappa Bagewadi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2014CRL.P/100566/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka declined bail to an 70-year-old accused charged with murder under IPC 302 and 307. The Court held that investigation was incomplete and eyewitness testimony required verification of prior disputes before less severe charges could be considered.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no bail granted. Petitioner directed to approach Sessions Court after filing of charge-sheet.

Shrisail S/O Parappa Bagewadi Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.100566/2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRISHAIL S/O PARAPPA BAGEWADI AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.KURANI VILLAGE, TQ: HUKKERI, DT: BELGAUM

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. LAXMIKANT K GURAV, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YAMAKANMARDI POLICE STATION TQ: HUKKERI, R/B STATE P.P.HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH DHARWAD

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING THAT THE PETITIONER BE ORDERED TO BE RELEASED ON BAIL IN YAMAKANMARDI P.S. CR.NO.42/2014 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302,307 OF I.P.C.

¶16

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

¶19

A lady by name Sunita Balappa Bagewadi

¶20

lodged a complaint against the petitioner and others before the Yamakanmaradi Police making allegation that her husband by name Balappa aged about 48 years had three brothers by name Shrishail (petitioner herein) Basavanni and Bhimappa. It is alleged that there was some dispute with regard to the landed property between the brothers. In this back ground it is alleged that on 03.02.2014, when the complainant was in her parental house at Gotur village at about 12.00 noon her in-law Bhimappa over telephone informed her that at about

¶21

¶22

11.30 a.m. in the land of the complainant his brother

¶23

Balappa and the petitioner quarreled each other the petitioner was holding small sickle (kurupi), assaulted the deceased with the said Kurupi and also on the left side ear of Bhimappa and attempted to murder Bhimappa. The deceased by name Balappa having sustained severe injury and died on the spot. Bhimappa was taken to the hospital. It is seen from the records that learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the petition and while passing the order it is categorically stated that the statements of Bhimappa and another injured were recorded and they have stated about the incident. The Sessions Judge also referred the medical report with regard to the deceased Balappa. I have also observed the postmortem report of deceased Balappa, there are four injuries on his body. Particularly second lacerated wound of 5”x4” running horizontally from left Iafrascapular region and extending up to posterior

¶24

¶25

axillary line left side, sharply cut everted clean margins, deep up to left lung dried blood clots all over the upper back region. The Doctor has opined that cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock secondary to injury sustained to vital organ.

¶26

Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

¶27

brought to my notice that there are two eye witnesses to the said incident and investigation is still in progress. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to unsuccessfully persuade me arguing that the incident happened in a fur of moment as there was a quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased and injured. It was not a preplaned murder etc. It is also contended that the petitioner’s age is 70 years. In my opinion, the above said circumstances are not sufficient to enlarge the petitioner on bail, because of the simple reason, the complaint averments does not disclose that there was a

¶28

¶29

quarrel between the brothers prior to the incident and only due to instigation by the deceased accused assaulted him. Further the investigation is still in progress has to be found out there was any quarrel between themselves at that particular point of time. Then only it can be said the accused has committed any offence under Section 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore it has to be dealt with only after the charge sheet is filed. Merely because the petitioner is aged about 70 years it cannot be said that he is suffering from any decease or he is unable to move about due to any ailment. Under the above circumstances, when investigation is not yet completed it is not fit case to admit the accused for bail. Hence, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Sessions Court after filing of the charge sheet for grant of regular bail.

¶30

¶31

With these observations, the petition stands

¶32

dismissed.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE Rms

Shrisail S/O Parappa Bagewadi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrisail S/O Parappa Bagewadi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagamma W/O. Indudhar Guggari Vs the State of Karnataka

Eranna S/O Chidanandappa Vs State of Karnataka through

M/S Iliyaash Mines Vs M/S Nair Coal Service Ltd.

Namadev S Badiger @ Shahapur Vs State

Karimkhan S/O. Mittakhan Dharwad Vs the State of Karnataka

Khawaja Moinuddin S/O Abdul Hameed Madlur Vs the State of Karnataka by