Allowed

Mallappa S/O Siddappa Hosamani and Ors. v. the State through

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2016CRL.P/200609/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to five petitioners charged with murder and other offences under the IPC and SC/ST Act. The court observed that prosecution eye witnesses had turned hostile and the trial had not progressed, leading to a denial of proceedings. Bail was allowed subject to conditions including bail bonds and Cooperation in investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners enlarged on bail subject to furnishing self-bond and surety of Rs.1,00,000/- each and compliance with specific conditions including not leaving jurisdiction and appearing

Mallappa S/O Siddappa Hosamani and Ors. Vs the State through — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200609/2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Mallappa S/o Siddappa Hosamani Age: 26 years, Occupation: Agriculture

¶9

Guru @ Gurusnath S/o Mapanna Badeger Age: 21 years, Occupation: Agriculture

¶10

Subhash S/o Sana Siddappa Bhootali Age: 31 years

¶11

Bhimappa S/o Sana Siddappa Bhootali Age: 30 years, Occupation: Hamali

¶12

Chandrappa S/o Sanasiddappa Bhootali Age: 21 years, Occupation: Hamali

¶13

All Resident of Village Maradagi Taluka: Jewargi, District: Kalaburagi

¶14

… PETITIONERS

¶15

(Shri Nandkishore Boob, Advocate)

¶16

¶17

AND:

¶18

The State through Yedrami Police Station District: Kalaburagi

¶19

(Shri Sheshadri Jaishankar M., Government Pleader)

¶20

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to release the petitioner on bail in Crime No.74/2013 Yedrami Police Station, (Special Case No.34/2013 of II-Additional Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi) which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 504, 506 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code & under Sections 3(I) (X) 2(V) of SC/ST P.A.Act.

¶21

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

¶24

The petitioners had earlier approached this court in

¶25

Criminal Petition No.15966/2013 which was heard along with

¶26

other petitions, where by a common order the petition was disposed of with an observation that the petitioners could press for early trial, if so advised and if there was no progress at the

¶27

¶28

trial after six months, the petitioners could move for bail as per the order dated 10.12.2013.

¶29

The facts leading up to the case are that, on 17.04.2013 at about 8:30 p.m., when the complainant, her husband Madivalappa and mother-in-law Laxmibai were together, the complainant’s husband had received a phone call from one Mallanagouda Lakhanapur asking Madivalappa to come at Sathkhed cross and it transpires Madivalappa went there and at about 9:30 p.m. the complainant learnt her husband was murdered by Mallangouda and others and the complainant had rushed at the spot and saw the dead body of her husband. It is in this background, a case was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and after further investigation, the accused were charge sheeted. There were three eye witnesses namely CWs.8 to 10 and it transpires that CWs.9 and 10 have been examined as witnesses at the trial and

¶30

¶31

they have turned hostile. Insofar as CW.8 is concerned, who has been examined as PW.5, his evidence was recorded in examination-in-chief. However, in spite of several adjournments, he has not presented himself for crossexamination. It is further stated that there is yet another case in respect of accused No.7 wherein the very witness had tendered evidence and he was cross-examined and he had turned hostile. Therefore, there has been no progress in the trial and eventually, at the conclusion of the trial, in the face of the eye witnesses having turned hostile, it is quite possible that the prosecution would not be possible to sustain the charges against the accused and it is in this background that the petitioners seek that they may be enlarged on bail. Having regard to the tardy progress in the trial and though it had commenced earlier in the year 2013 and the petitioners having been in custody for the past two years ten months, the petitioners’ case may be considered for grant of bail.

¶32

¶33

In view of the above circumstances, though the learned

¶34

Government Pleader would contend that the charge against the petitioners is serious and that their earlier bail petition having been rejected with an observation that they could move for fresh bail, does not entail grant of bail as a matter of course. Hence, he would seek to oppose the bail petition.

¶35

Given the circumstance that the eye witnesses have turned hostile and one of them has not even offered himself for cross-examination, the apprehension of the learned Counsel for

¶36

the petitioners that the trial may be indeed be tardy and as a result the petitioners being in custody looms large.

¶37

Consequently, the petitioners have made out a case of enlargement on bail. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The petitioners shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶38

¶39

i. The petitioners shall furnish self-bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh Only), each, with one surety for a like sum, each, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶40

ii. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below, without the leave of the Court.

¶41

iii. The petitioners shall offer all co-operation in the investigation of the offence.

¶42

iv. The petitioners shall make themselves available for further investigation at all points of time.

¶43

v. The petitioners shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing of the case.

¶44

vi. The petitioners shall not, in any manner seek to tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶45

��

¶46

sdu

Mallappa S/O Siddappa Hosamani and Ors. v. the State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallappa S/O Siddappa Hosamani and Ors. v. the State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Keranna S/O Valappa Chavan and Ors. Vs the State through

Sri Sanjaya Kumar S/O Dhanaji Vs Sri Suryakanth S/O Vishwanath

Netaji S/O Mohan Rao Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Jameer S/O Abdul Gani Ors. Vs the State through Shorapur Ps, Yadgir

Shivappa S/O Peerappa Vs Rajkumar @ Rajappa Late Lakkawwa

Siddappa @ Siddapgouda S/O Sangappa Patil Vs the State