Dismissed

Shri.Hanamant S/O Gurling Teli v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2020CRL.P/100570/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Court rejected bail petition for two accused charged with murder and injury under IPC. Despite claims that their injuries were not to vital parts and parity with other granted bails, the court found no valid grounds considering interfamily rivalry, likelihood of threat, and joint liability under Section 34.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for regular bail rejected; accused not released.

Shri.Hanamant S/O Gurling Teli Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^{T H} DAY OF JULY, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100570/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI HANAMANT S/O GURLING TELI AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O: MUGALKHOD, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317.

¶9

SHRI MALAPPA S/O GURLING TELI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUGALKHOD, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317.

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI SHIVRAJ S BALLOLI, ADVOCATE.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HARUGERI POLICE STATION, RAIBAG TALUK, DIST: BELAGAVI, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.

¶14

... RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP.)

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 3 ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.5/2020 OF HARUGERI POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL JMFC, RAIBAG, FOR THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 307, 326, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC, 1860, ETC.,.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 3, under section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail in Crime No.5/2020 of Harugeri P.S., pending on the file of Addl. JMFC, Raibag, registered for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 326, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC.

¶21

The prosecution case is that on the complaint filed by one of the injured victim Basappa Teli, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that there was an enmity between the family of the complainant and the accused even though they are the relatives. On

¶22

¶23

7.1.2020 afternoon at about 1.30 p.m., when the

¶24

brother of the complainant was standing on the roadside, accused No.3 dashed his motorcycle and abused him in a filthy language. In that connection there was a quarrel between them. On the same day evening at 6.00 p.m., when the complainant and his father and his brothers were standing, accused Nos.1 to 4 came with clubs, iron rod and chilly powder. They picked up quarrel and assaulted the complainant, his father and his brothers. The complainant’s father succumbed to the injuries caused due to the assault. The complainant was also injured.

¶25

On registering the case, the police have conducted the investigation and the accused/petitioners are arrested on 8.1.2020. All the accused persons had filed bail petition before the Sessions Court, but the bail petition of

¶26

¶27

petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 has been rejected and accused Nos.2 and 4 have been granted bail.

¶28

respondent State. Perused the prosecution records at this stage.

¶29

The main contention of the learned

¶30

counsel for the petitioners is that accused Nos.2 and 4 have been granted bail by the Sessions Court. Accused Nos.1 and 3 have not assaulted the complainant’s father on vital parts of the body. The allegations are only against accused Nos.2 and 4 that they have assaulted on vital parts of the body of the complainant’s father, which has resulted in his death. But whereas

¶31

accused Nos.1 and 3 have assaulted only on hands and legs, as such the ingredients of section

¶32

302 of IPC are not attracted as far as these petitioners are concerned. The investigation is

¶33

¶34

completed. Due to the detention, the petitioners have been put to hardship.

¶35

Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that the Sessions Court has granted bail to accused Nos.2 and 4 on different grounds, as such the principles of parity cannot be applied. There was premeditation by the accused persons. The accused had come prepared and assaulted the complainant, his father and brothers. On account of rivalry, these accused have committed the offences. In the event of granting bail, they are likely to commit similar offences, as such the bail petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶36

Having regard to the submission made

¶37

by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the contents of column No.17 of the charge sheet, medical records and the order of the Sessions Court. It is pertinent to note that the Sessions

¶38

¶39

Court has granted bail to accused Nos.2 and 4, mainly only the reason that the accused No.4 Mahadev is a HIV patient and another accused No.2 Dundappa is working in Kittur Rani Channamma Residential School and the records indicate that he was not present at the spot on the date of alleged incident of assault. Thus the principles of parity cannot be applied. In view of section 34 of IPC, the act of each accused becomes act of all. The most important factor to be considered is that there is a rivalry between both families in connection with the land dispute i.e., regarding user of the road situated in the agricultural land.

¶40

The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioners/accused are likely to cause threat to the injured victim and his family members and

¶41

¶42

also the prosecution witnesses. The said

¶43

apprehension cannot be ruled out.

¶44

circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view there are no valid grounds for granting bail. Accordingly,

¶45

I proceed to pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. is rejected.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Mrk/-

Shri.Hanamant S/O Gurling Teli v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Hanamant S/O Gurling Teli 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

Sri.Manjunath S/O Ningappa Yeddalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Maltesh S/O. Chikkappa Nellibidu Vs Sunita W/O. Parameshappa Kadappanavar

Khajameer S/O Basir Saab Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Vinayak Prabhakar Tarlekar Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Hanamant Appasab Shirahatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramanna S/O Mahadevappa Dhooli Vs the State of Karnataka