Dismissed

Shri. Suresh S/O. Tippanna Gudli v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2021CRL.P/100155/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court issued this order on a criminal petition filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. for regular bail in a murder case involving offenses under IPC and SC/ST PA Act. The court dismissed the bail petition after finding no grounds for letting the accused off.

What did the court decide?

Petition for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. dismissed with no bail granted.

Shri. Suresh S/O. Tippanna Gudli Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100155/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI SURESH S/O. TIPPANNA GUDLI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC-COOLIE, DURGADEVI (DARAVESHI) GALLI, R/AT SANTIBASTAWAD-590 014, TQ. AND DIST-BELAGAVI.

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI ASHOK R. KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (BELAGAVI RURAL P.S.) REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL’S OFFICE, HIGH COURT BENCH PREMISES, DHARWAD-01.

¶12

.. RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY MS. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. AND PRAYED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.17/2019 OF BELAGAVI RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 341 AND 302 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1)(S), 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST PA ACT, 1989 AND AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. (SC.NO.136/2019 BEFORE THE COURT FOR POCSO SC/ST PA ACT AND III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM).

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.7 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting regular bail in Crime No.17/2019 registered by Belagavi Rural Police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989).

¶19

Heard Sri Ashok R.Kalyanashetti, the learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.7 as well as Ms.Seema Shiva Naik, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.

¶20

The case of prosecution is that on the complaint filed by one Basappa Beeramutti on 28.01.2019 at 5:00 hours police registered the case. It is alleged by the complainant that he is having 3 brothers and the deceased-Vishwanath is son of his elder brother-Yallappa. On 28.012019 night at 1:00 p.m CW-2-Suresh Patil, CW-3-Laxman came and told that the deceased-Vishwanath

¶21

¶22

and they were drinking the alcohol on 27.01.2019 at night hours in the land of accused No.1, at that time, the accused Nos.1 to 7 were came near the spot where they sitting, accused Nos.3 and 4 assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons like sickle and sword and committed the murder. Immediately, complainant along with his mother and others were went to the spot and saw the deceased-Vishwanath was found dead and head of the deceased was cut off from the body. After lodging the complaint, police arrested the accused and then remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner being the accused No.7, who said to be surrendered before the police and later he was remanded to judicial custody on 02.02.2019. He has approached the Sessions Judge for granting bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.7 has contended that the accused No.7 is innocent of the alleged offenses. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The motive is attributed against accused Nos.3 and 4, who were attempted to assault the deceased 2 years back and the accused Nos.1 and 2 said to have helped the accused Nos.3 and 4 have going out from

¶24

¶25

the jail on bail and overt act also against the accused Nos.3 and 4. There is no motive or overt act attributed against this petitioner there is no recovery from him. The entire allegation goes against the other accused persons. Though, the complainant has stated accused Nos.1 to 7 came to the place where the deceased, CW-2 and 3 were drinking alcohol. In the charge sheet, it was changed their version and stated this petitioner called the deceased through telephone for the purpose of selling of car, where they all together drink the alcohol, thereafter incident took place. He is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Charge sheet is already filed. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.

¶26

Per Contra , learned HCGP objected the bail petition and contended that there is no motive attributed against the accused persons for having committed murder previously. Accused Nos.3 and 4 attempted to commit the murder, he has escaped, but in the said case accused Nos.1 and 2 helped without to come out on bail on the previous enmity the accused/present petitioner in collusion with the other accused called him by telephone, accordingly, they made to drink the deceased and after drinking alcohol, accused

¶27

¶28

committed the murder. This petitioner/accused No.7 held the legs of the deceased. Therefore, accused Nos.3 and 4 cut of the head of the deceased. If this petitioner not caught hold the legs of the deceased, deceased might have escaped from the clutches of the accused persons. There is common object to commit murder and there are strong eyewitness. CWs.2 and 3 were stated this petitioner called the deceased through his telephone. Investigating Officer collected the telephone call list and other materials goes to show that they were committed the murder by cut of the head of deceased from his body. Therefore, prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

¶29

Upon hearing the arguments on both sides and on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the deceasedVishwanath was died homicidal death by cutting the head from the body. The allegations in the complaint goes to show, CWs.2 and 3 came and told that while they were drinking alcohol, these accused persons came and committed murder of Vishwanath. CW.10 is not an eyewitness, but he is a hearsay from the CWs.2 and 3. During the investigation, the statements of CWs.2 and 3 were recorded,

¶30

¶31

they have categorically stated on 27.01.2019 the deceased and they were went near the house of accused No.1 at the request of this petitioner/accused No.7, who called by telephone for the purpose of selling car. Thereafter, accused drinking them, these accused persons especially accused Nos.3 and 4 were went to the house of accused No.1 brought sickle and sword and then they picked up quarrel with the deceased and started assaulting the deceased, deceased tried to ran away but this petitioner/accused No.7 caught hold the legs of Vishwanath along with other accused. Thereafter, accused No.4 assaulted the deceased with the sickle and cut off the his head and caused murder. On perusal of the statement and material placed on record, which shows this petitioner/accused No.7 actively participated in committing the murder of deceased-Vishwanath. It cannot be said that he has not attributed any intention or object in killing or committing the murder on the previous motive of accused Nos.3 and 4 made an attempt to kill subsequently, they killed the deceased and cut off the head of deceased is a barbaric act committed by the accused persons. The offence is punishable with death imprisonment or life imprisonment. And offence is also including the offence under the

¶32

¶33

SC/ST PA Act. Therefore, I do not find any ground for exercising power under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting bail to this petitioner/accused No.7. hence, bail petition of accused No.7 is hereby dismissed.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

ckk

Shri. Suresh S/O. Tippanna Gudli v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Suresh S/O. Tippanna Gudli 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

Ramanagoudar S/O. Sanaganagouda Patil Vs Basanagouda S/O. Mallikarnunagouda Patil

Arjun Gundu Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Rajeev B Kalenatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Jagadeesh S/O.Late Eswarappa, Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh Alias Bellatur Ramesh Vs State by Avalahalli Ps

Dinesh Alias Balu S/O Tukarm Mirashi Vs the State of Karnataka