Allowed

Mallanna@ Mallanna Gouda v. the State through Kembhavi Plice Station

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2019CRL.P/200559/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to the petitioner accused No.6 in a criminal case involving offences under IPC and the SC/ST Act. The Court rejected arguments regarding flight risk and witness tampering, citing strict conditions to ensure the petitioner's appearance at trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted conditioned on personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, prohibition on leaving jurisdiction, and non-interference with witnesses.

Mallanna@ Mallanna Gouda Vs the State through Kembhavi… — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.200559/2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mallanna @ Mallanna Gouda S/o Babugouda Dhavalagi, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Agateerth, Tq: Hunasagi, Dist: Yadagir.

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri. Nandkishore Boob, Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

The State through Kembhavi Police Station Now Represented by the Addl. SPP, HCKB at Kalaburagi.

¶13

… Respondent

¶14

(By Sri. P.S.Patil, HCGP)

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release the petitioner/A.No.6 on bail, in Cr.No.190/2018 of Kembhavi PS, for the offences U/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302, 354, 504, 506 & 114 R/w 149 of IPC & 3(1) (R), 3(1)(s)(W) (I), 2(5) of SC / ST Act, 1989, pending on the file of Dist. & Sessions Judge at Yadgiri in Spl.C. (SC/ST) No.55/2018, in view of the reasons as stated above, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Criminal Petition is filed is filed under Section 439 Cr.PC, seeking bail to the petitioner in Crime No.190/2018 of Kembhavi Police Station, for the offences U/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302, 354, 504, 506 & 114 R/w 149 of IPC & 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S)(W) (l), 2 (5) of SC / ST Act, on the file of Dist. & Sessions Judge, Yadgiri in Spl.C.(SC/ST) No.55/2018.

¶20

On the basis of the complaint filed by the wife of victim namely Paramawwa W/o Nandappa Dodamani. The respondent-police have registered the case. The allegations are that about six months prior to the date of complaint, when the complainant’s son Mallappa was going on motorcycle, accused No.5 Nanagouda had dashed to his tractor of the complainant and as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. As per request of the accused No.5, the police case was not registered as

¶21

¶22

the accused No.5 and his family members had assured that they would pay the medical expenses. Thereafter, the accused No.5 and his family member did not pay the expenditure incurred towards the medical treatment and went on postponing on one or the other pretext. On 12.05.2018 evening at 5.00 p.m. the complainant Smt. Paramawwa got the information that the accused persons have assaulted her husband as he had asked for payment of expenditure incurred for medical treatment for his son. On registering the case, the police have conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet which is numbered as Spl.C.(SC/ST) No.55/2018. All the accused are in judicial custody except accused No.13.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the charge sheet records.

¶24

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶26

(accused No.6) submitted that according to the complaint averments, the petitioner namely accused No.6 has assaulted with a stone on the left leg of the deceased Nandappa. In complaint a specific allegations are that accused No.5, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 assaulted with their rods and clubs whereas in the charge sheet records, it is stated that petitioner namely accused No.6 had thrown the stone on the left leg knee, as such there was a fracture in the left leg. The material objects namely the weapons said to have been used for punishable offences have been recovered through panchanama. Since, the charge sheet has been filed and at this stage no grounds are made out whether the presence of petitioner is necessary for either for test identification for parade on further custodial interrogation. The only objection is that in the event of granting bail, the accused is likely to abscond and hamper the prosecution

¶27

¶28

witnesses, the said objections may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.

¶29

In a decision reported in 2005 Crl.L.J. 883

¶30

(Supreme Court), it is observed as under:

¶31

“[C] Criminal P.C. [2 of 1974], Ss. 437, 439 – Grant of bail in case of non-bailable offence – Factors to be considered, stated

¶32

The considerations which normally weigh with the Court in granting bail in nonbailable offences are – the nature and seriousness of offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶33

¶34

In view of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, the grounds urged by the petitioners for grant bail may be may be considered if there are justifiable reasons instead of detaining by way of punishment.

¶35

In the present case, even according to the charge sheet records, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he has thrown the stone on the leg of the victim as a result of which there is a fracture. But the death of the victim is namely on account of head injuries. At this stage, it is needless to make the elaborate discussion about prosecution records and the same is not permissible by considering the bail application. Even were a prima-facie case is established the approach of the Court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be retained by way of punishment. But whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the

¶36

¶37

discretion granted in his favour by tampering with the evidence.

¶38

Considering facts and circumstances and the

¶39

charge sheet records, this court is of the opinion that there are valid grounds for granting bail as for as accused No.6 is concerned. As such the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following…

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court/ Committal Court.

¶42