Allowed

Sachin S/O Srimath Hugar v. the State through

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2017CRL.P/200832/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted regular bail to accused No.5 in a case involving caste-based assault and grievous injury. The court held that while injuries were serious, the specific victim indicated the petitioner was not the direct attacker compared to another accused.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner/accused No.5 released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 with sureties and various conditions.

Sachin S/O Srimath Hugar Vs the State through — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.200832/2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sachin S/o Srimanth Hugar Age: 24 years Occ: Furniture work R/o Near Hanuman Temple Biddapur Colony, Kalaburagi

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri Sanjay A. Patil, Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

The State through Brahmpur Police Station Kalaburagi Now Represented by Addl. State Public Prosecutor HCKB at Kalaburagi

¶13

... Respondent (By Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP)

¶14

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying to release the petitioner on bail in Crime No.139/2017 of Brahampur Police Station, Kalaburagi, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 504, 427, 114 r/w Section 149 of IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (x) 2(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶15

¶16

This petition is coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.139/2017 of Brahampur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 504, 427, 114 r/w Section 149 of IPC and also for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) and 2(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶19

Brief matrix of the case of the complainant are that, earlier because of some dispute with Abhilash and Nitin, a quarrel took place and a case was registered in Ashok Nagar Police Station, Kalaburagi against the complainant, Abhilash and Nitin and they have been released on bail. In that light, on 23.05.2017, Mirza Abdul Baig and Moin Khan asked the

¶20

¶21

complainant to come near Goa Hotel and accordingly, he along with Abhilash, Nitin and Sumeet went near Goa Hotel in their car and by sitting in the car when they were talking to Mirza Abdul Baig and Moin Khan, Pradeep @ 7 Star Pradeep, Amar and others and one John @ Noorya along with 15-20 persons came with deadly weapons like Talwar (Sword) and rod in a car and motorcycles and suddenly, attacked them and started pelting stones on the car. When they concealed in the car, they broke the glasses of the car and dragged them. One Pradeep caused grievous injury to Nitin by assaulting with sword on the head. Accused-Amar assaulted him by means of rod on the left hand. When the Mirza Abdul Baig and Moin Khan intervened, Santosh Yadav, John, Raghu and Sachin assaulted them by means of Sword and rod on their body, causing them severe injuries and fracture with an intention to take away their life. When Abhilash and Sumeet made their way in galata, Raghu and Santosh abused the

¶22

¶23

complainant and one Nitin @ Pinto abused in filthy language by taking their caste name. Remaining 15-20 persons instigated the other accused persons. It is further stated that the incident has taken place on 23.05.2017 at about 8.15 p.m., to 8.25 p.m. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered against the accused persons.

¶24

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

¶25

4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence alleged against him. Though there is an allegation of having assaulted the injured-Abdul Baig Mirza, statement of the said witness clearly indicates that accused No.2-Amar has assaulted on his head with Talwar and other accused persons have assaulted with rod on leg, hands and back

¶26

¶27

of the victim. He would further contend that petitioner has not involved in serious offence and accused Nos.7 to 9 have already been released on bail, on the ground that, there are no overt-acts against them with regard to the said offences. As the charge sheet has already been filed, the petitioner is not required for investigation. He would also contend that petitioner has got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of he being absconded. He would further contend that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶28

5. On the contrary, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently contended that the complaint averments clearly indicate that the petitioner has assaulted on the head of the injured and caused

¶29

¶30

grievous injuries. He would contend that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are serious in nature and they are not out of danger. Under similar circumstances, the bail petition filed by accused Nos.3 and 4 was dismissed. At this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of he being absconded and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

6. I have gone through the copy of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition.

¶32

7. As could be seen from the complaint, because of the earlier complaint, on 23.05.2017, Mirza Abdul Baig and Moin Khan asked the complainant to come near Goa Hotel and accordingly, he along with Abhilash, Nitin and Sumeet went near Goa Hotel in their car and by sitting in the car when they were talking to Mirza Abdul Baig and Moin Khan, the accused persons have

¶33

¶34

assaulted them with rod and talwar and caused injuries. Though there is an allegation in the complaint against the petitioner/accused No.5 to the effect that he has assaulted with rod and talwar on the head of the injured-Abdul Baig Mirza, in the statement recorded by the police, the injured-Abdul Baig Mirza has clearly stated that it is accused No.2-Amar who has assaulted on his head with Talwar and caused grievous injuries and other accused persons have assaulted with rod on leg, hand and back of the injured. If that is taken into consideration, there is no serious overt-act against the petitioner. Though the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor contends that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are serious in nature, but it is submitted that the injured persons are out of danger and they have been discharged from the hospital. When there is no serious overt-act against the petitioner and the offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, I am of

¶35

¶36

the opinion that petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Therefore, I feel that if the petitioner is released on bail by imposing stringent conditions, it would safeguard the interest of the prosecution and it would meet the ends of justice.

¶37

8. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused No.5 is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶38

i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶39

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses;

¶40

iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶41

¶42

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on all the dates of hearing without fail.

¶43

v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without its prior permission.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

NB* Ct: vk

Sachin S/O Srimath Hugar v. the State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin S/O Srimath Hugar 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

Sohail S/O Gaffur Jambagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Latif Baba and Anr. Vs the State through

Rambabu S/O Bhojanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Madanan Pillai S S/O. Sreedaran Pillai Vs the State through

Earappa and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Hussainsab S/O Khasimsab Vs Siddappa @Siddanna S/O Nagappa.Hirekurubar and Anr.