Partly allowed

Channamallappa S/O Parasappa Halakurki v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2018CRL.P/101404/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a bail petition filed by four accused persons charged with murder in a family dispute. The court rejected bail for three male accused but granted bail to one female accused, noting her unique relationship and lack of sufficient grounds for joint custody interference.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for Petitioner No. 4 (Ratnawwa) subject to personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-; Bail rejected for Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3.

Channamallappa S/O Parasappa Halakurki Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

Crl. P. No. 101404/2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHANNAMALLAPPA, S/O PARASAPPA HALAKURKI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O TUGGALADONI VILLAGE, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶9

SHARANAPPA S/O PARASAPPA HALAKURKI, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O TUGGALADONI VILLAGE, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶10

PARASAPPA S/O CHANNAPPA HALAKURKI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O TUGGALADONI VILLAGE, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶11

RATNAWWA W/O PARASAPPA HALAKURKI, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O TUGGALADONI VILLAGE, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶12

PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI RAKESH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HANUMASAGARA POLICE, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶16

RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K UPPAR, GOVT. PLEADER)

¶18

: 2 :

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONERSACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4 IN HANUMASAGARA P.S. CRIME NO. 86/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 504, 302 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KUSHTAGI & ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 in connection with Crime No. 86/2018 of Hanumasagara Police Station registered for the offences punishable u/S 143, 147, 504, 302 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC.

¶23

The substance of the complaint is that, on 28.04.2018 the complainant Hanumanthappa lodged a report at 22.30 hours to the respondent Police stating that there are five siblings including the complainant to their parents. All the siblings are married. The younger brother of the complainant is Prakash and Sharanappa. Accused Parasappa Halakurki had got a share of properties and there is a drainage which flows in the rear side of the house of the accused and in connection

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

with the easementary right of flow of drain water, there has been a dispute between the brothers of the complainant and the accused persons. In this connection, on 28.04.2018 at 6.00 p.m. the accused Channamallappa and Sharanappa removed the stairs attached to the house of Prakash. The accused Channamallappa held Prakash, abused in filthy language and strangulated. When Ramanna Kunamenchi went to rescue Prakash, the accused Parasappa kicked Prakash on the chest and he fell down, the accused Rathnawwa and Shavawwa abused him in filthy language. By that time, Prakash screamed uttering “Amma” and fainted. At that time, Ramanna Kunamenchi, Lokanagowda, Parasappa intervened and Prakash was taken to hospital and Doctor declared him dead. In this connection, a complaint came to be filed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Rakesh S. Hattikatagi would submit that Prakash was a Cardiac patient and there was no nexus between the alleged

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

injuries and the death. Moreover, there is no allegation of use of deadly weapons by the petitioners.

¶29

Learned District Judge had rejected the bail application filed by the petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. 318/2018 on 13.06.2018.

¶30

Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners do not have any criminal background, they are all family members and their families are being jeopardized because of the arrest and judicial custody. Petitioners are said to be arrested on 30.04.2018. The investigation is reported to have been completed.

¶31

The learned counsel would submit that there was no scope for interference to the prosecution nor there is even allegation of interference by them to the investigation.

¶32

Learned Govt. Pleader would submit that the petitioners do not deserve mercy considering the way of committing murder on slot made on Prakash.

¶33

: 5 :

¶34

The petitioners are four in number. Thus majority of the family members are arrested and they are in judicial custody.

¶35

The cause of death is respiratory arrest due to injury to spinal cord. In this connection, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the deceased was a cardiac patient. If the deceased was a cardiac patient and it was known to the petitioners, they were supposed to have taken care and caution in confronting with Prakash.

¶36

Learned counsel brought to my notice the name in the further statement of the complainant recorded on 29.04.2018, that the name of the victim is mentioned as “Sharanappa”. On the contextual reading of the statement and the complaint it makes out very clear that it must be a typographical error, more particularly the conduct of the accused persons as could be seen is that they attacked Prakash, even after the later got fainted he was armless.

¶37

: 6 :

¶38

Stay of the petitioners in judicial custody and completion of investigation may not help all of them in the peculiar circumstances of the case. However, the petitioner No.4-Ratnawwa being a lady and wife of petitioner No.3 and she is also mother of petitioners 1 and 2, may be granted the relief of bail. I find it is this petitioner alone who has made out grounds for releasing her on bail but not the other petitioners-accused nos.1 to 3. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Bail petition insofar as the petitioners-accused nos.1 to 3 is concerned, is rejected.

¶41

Bail petition is allowed insofar as petitioneraccused No.4 Ratnawwa is concerned. She is ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 86/2018 of Hanumasagara Police Station registered for the offences punishable u/S 143, 147, 504, 302 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC subject to the following conditions.

¶42

: 7 :

¶43

She shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Court;

¶44

She shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

bvv

Channamallappa S/O Parasappa Halakurki v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Channamallappa S/O Parasappa Halakurki 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daulath S/O Husain Sab Agasibagelu Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivayogeppa S/O. Basavanneppa Bilagi Vs the Cardmom Merchants Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Punit S/O Bhimasing Rajaput Vs State of Karnataka

K. Lingappa S/O Harijana Hanumanthappa Vs Anirudd Sravan

Riyazasab S/O Maiboobsab Sayyad @ Bandagisayyed Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddarth S/O Madav Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka