Allowed

Gangadhar S/O Basavanneppa Shettikeri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2020CRL.P/100419/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused charged with murder and other offences. The Court observed the sudden nature of the quarrel, lack of premeditation, and granted bail subject to execution of a personal bond and conditions against tampering.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner/accused released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in Crime No.98/2019 subject to personal bond and conditions.

Gangadhar S/O Basavanneppa Shettikeri Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^{T H} DAY OF JULY, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100419/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GANGADHAR S/O BASAVANNEPPA SHETTIKERI AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: COCONUT SELLER, R/O: VARAVI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI S S BETURMATH, ADVOCATE.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THORUGH SHIRAHATTI POLICE STATION, NOW REPRESENTED BY S P P, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP.)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON

¶16

¶17

REGULAR BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH SHIRAHATTI P.S. CRIME NO.98/2019, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 302, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG, IN S.C. NO.102/2019, ETC.,.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed by accused No.1 under section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail in Crime No.98/2019 of Shirahatti P.S., S.C.No.102/2019 pending on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, registered for the offences punishable under sections 323, 302, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC.

¶21

The prosecution case is that on the

¶22

complaint filed by father-in-law of the deceased victim, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that his son-in-law Mahantesh and his brother Basavaraj are having coconut shop in front of Mouneshwar Temple. On 22.8.2019 at

¶23

¶24

about 12.00 noon the complainant and his wife had gone to the said shop. Both the victims Mahantesh and Basavaraj were calling the devotees to purchase coconut and other pooja items. At that time three persons namely Gangadhar, Manappa, Mahesh Shettikeri, who are from the neighbouring shop picked up quarrel with Mahantesh and Basavaraj as to why they are calling the devotees. In spite of objections, they continued soliciting the customers. Therefore quarrel started between them. The accused persons assaulted Mahantesh and Basavaraj. On account of the assault done by the accused persons, Basavaraj sustained head injuries. Both the injured victims were taken to SDM Hospital. Since the elders of the village did not settle the dispute, the complaint was lodged on 28.8.2019 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 326, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC. Thereafter one of the injured died on account of

¶25

¶26

the injuries sustained by him. Hence, charge sheet has been filed by inserting section 302 IPC. The accused/petitioner was arrested on 29.8.2019. Since then he is in judicial custody. The bail petition filed by the accused/petitioner before the Sessions Court was rejected. The remaining accused persons have been granted bail by the High Court.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent State. Perused the charge sheet records.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the accused/petitioner had no intention whatsoever to commit murder of the victim Basavaraj. There is a delay of three days in filing the complaint which is not explained. The alleged incident has taken place due to the sudden quarrel. There was no premeditation,

¶29

¶30

intention or motive to commit the offence. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet has been filed. The accused persons had not assembled there with a preparation and they had no deadly weapons. Thus there is no prima facie case to attract the ingredients of section 302 of IPC. The facts narrated may attract section 304 part I or II of IPC. At this stage there are no grounds for custodial interrogation. Due to the detention the petitioner has been put to hardship.

¶31

Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted

¶32

that CW.8 to CW.13 are the eye witnesses, CW.1 is the injured eye witness. There is prima facie material to show that the petitioner along with other accused persons has committed the offences.

¶33

Having regard to the submission made

¶34

by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCPG, this Court has gone through the

¶35

¶36

charge sheet records. Admittedly the offence was committed on 25.8.2019 but the complaint was filed on 28.8.2019. The explanation given for the delay in filing the complaint is that the elders of the village could not settle the dispute, as such the complaint was filed at a later date. The materials placed on record goes to show that initially the case was registered for the offences punishable under sections 323, 326, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC. Later, section 302 of IPC was inserted and charge sheet has been submitted.

¶37

The complaint allegations clearly go to show that the accused and the victims are neighbouring shop owners. On the date of the alleged incident, both the victims were soliciting or calling the customers to purchase coconut and other pooja items which was objected by the accused persons, as such there was a quarrel

¶38

¶39

between them. Thus it is evident that there was no premeditation or motive or grudge to assault the victims. There was no previous enmity or rivalry between them. It is only on the date of alleged incident there was a sudden quarrel. Even according to the prosecution, the weapon used to assault the victim Basavaraj is a coconut, which was available in their shop.

¶40

During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , wherein it is observed as under.

¶41

A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences.

¶42

¶43

Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.

¶44

There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the Judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.

¶45

In another decision reported in 1977(1) Crl.L.J. 486 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶46

“The Court while granting bail under S.439 cannot go into the details of evidence to find out whether the

¶47

¶48

evidence will be sufficient in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, it being not a relevant consideration at this stage to ascertain the probability of improbability of the prosecution case terminating in the conviction of the accused or not. While deciding a bail application it is not desirable to dissect or pronounce on the evidence otherwise in resorting to such a procedure the Court would be exceeding the limits of its functions. The probability of the guilt or innocence of the accusedpersons is not a relevant consideration while dealing with bail applications as the question to determine is whether the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge and not evidence establishing the guilt of the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt. Case law reviewed.”

¶49

It is well settled by law laid down by the

¶50

Hon’ble Supreme Court that the personal liberty deprived when bail is refused is too precious a

¶51

¶52

value of our constitutional system recognized under Article 21, that crucial power to negate it is a great trust and confidence to be exercised, not casually or cursorily, with great care and circumspection in accordance with established principles of justice.

¶53

In the instant case the petitioner/accused is languishing in jail since long time. The depriving of the liberty would be permissible only when the law authorizing and sanctioning it is reasonable. In the instant case there are no allegations about the criminal antecedents of the accused. The apprehension of the prosecution regarding tampering of the witnesses may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.

¶54

In the facts and circumstances of the

¶55

case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are grounds for granting

¶56

¶57

bail, subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

The petition filed under section 439 of

¶60

Cr.P.C., is allowed.

¶61

Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime No.98/2019 of Shirahatti P.S., S.C.No.102/2019 pending on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, subject to the following conditions.

¶62

i) The petitioner/accused No.1 shall

¶63

execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶64

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in

¶65

tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶66

¶67

iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission, till the disposal of the case.

¶68

If the petitioner/accused No.1 violates any of the conditions, the bail order automatically

¶69

stands cancelled.

¶70