Allowed

Maruti Balu Kitawadakar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2021CRL.P/100529/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail petition filed by four accused charged with murder and assault, holding that despite serious allegations, their detention was not necessary for investigation. Bail was granted on specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail on bond of Rs. 2,00,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions not committing offences, not tampering with witnesses, and appearing as required.

Maruti Balu Kitawadakar Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100529 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MARUTI BALU KITAWADAKAR

¶9

AGE: 70 YEARS

¶10

OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O CHELUVENATTI TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI

¶11

LAXMI MARUTI KITAWADAKAR AGE: 68 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O CHELUVENATTI TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI

¶12

JYOTIBA MARUTI KITAWADAKAR AGE: 35 YEARS OCC: MASON R/O CHELUVENATTI TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI

¶13

SAGAR MARUTI KITAWADAKAR

¶14

AGE: 32 YEARS OCC: PRIVATE WORKER R/O CHELUVENATTI TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI

¶15

… PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI: VIJAY K NAIK, ADV)

¶17

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KAKATI POLICE STATION DIST: BELAGAVI REP BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD

¶20

… RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI: RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF Cr.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERSACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4 ON BAIL IN KAKATI POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.16 OF 2021 FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 506, 341, 34, 504, 307, 324 OF THE IPC AND SUBSEQUENT ADDITION OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC VIDE REQUISITION LETTER DATED 13.02.2021.

¶23

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

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court seeking grant of regular bail in Crime No.16 of 2021 of Kakati Police Station, initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for the sake of brevity) on the basis of first information lodged by the informant Sri.Shivaji Topanna.

¶26

¶27

Brief facts of the case are that, the informant

¶28

lodged the first information on 06.02.2021 against accused Nos.1 to 4 stating that the informant and accused No.1 are neighbors. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the husband and wife and accused Nos.3 and 4 are their sons. There was long standing ill-will and dispute between the two as they were neighbors. It is stated that on 01.02.2021 the buffalo belonging to the informant ran over the cow dung cakes that were being dried by the accused. Accused No.2 picked up quarrel with the informant and abused him in filthy language. When the deceased who is the son of the informant questioned the high handed act of accused No.2, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and with an intention to cause the death of informant and his son, assaulted them with sticks, clubs and stones. It is stated that accused No.3 assaulted the deceased with stick, accused No.1 held the deceased and accused Nos.3 and 4 have assaulted

¶29

him on chest and back of his head with sticks and stones. Accused No.2 assaulted the wife of complainant with stick on her legs and hands. The deceased sustained grievous hurt and he was immediately shifted to District Hospital at

¶30

¶31

Belagavi. From there he was shifted to Vijaya Hospial, Belagavi for better treatment and was discharged on 05.02.2021. The wife of the informant got treated in the house itself. Therefore, he requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action. Accordingly, the police registered the case and took up investigation. It is stated that the son of the complainant was taking treatment at Vijaya Hospital and from there he was shifted to KLE Hospital, Belagavi and he died on 12.02.2021, while he was taking treatment in the hospital. Thereafter, Section 302 of IPC is also invoked against the accused.

¶32

Heard Sri.Vijay K.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Ramesh B.Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State through video conferencing. Perused the materials on record.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

¶34

petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 and they have not committed any offences as alleged. They have been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. These petitioners

¶35

¶36

have also filed counter complaint, which is registered in Crime No.18 of 2021. These petitioners were apprehended on 07.02.2021 and since then they are in judicial custody. They are not required for custodial interrogation. Their detention in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. He further submitted that accused No.1 is a senior citizen and accused No.2 is a lady. They are the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the petition and are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶37

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. There are 8 eye witnesses who have witnessed the incident. The offence alleged are punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The weapons used in commission of offence are recovered from the scene of occurrence. As per the postmortem report, the death of deceased was due to head injury. The investigation is still under progress. Under such circumstances, petitioners are

¶38

¶39

not entitled for grant of bail as there is every possibility of petitioners threatening or tampering the eye witnesses. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶40

In light of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is:

¶41

“Whether the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail?”

¶42

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the

¶43

following:

¶44

REASONS

¶45

Initially, the first information was lodged by the informant Shivaji Topanna, the father of deceased for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Specific allegations are made against accused Nos.1 to 4 who are the neighbors of the informant. It is stated that the accused have picked up quarrel for silly reason and assaulted the deceased and the informant with stick and stones. The injured Topanna was taking treatment in KLE Hospital, Belagavi and succumbed to

¶46

¶47

the injuries on 12.02.2021. The allegations made against the petitioners are of serious nature. It is stated that there are several eye witnesses to the incident. It is also stated that the weapons used in the commission of offence are already recovered from the scene of occurrence. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were apprehended on 07.02.2021 and since then they are in judicial custody. Even though, offences alleged are of serious nature, detention of these petitioners in custody is not required for any other purpose, except to ensure their presence before the Trial Court and to safeguard the interest of the prosecution witnesses. Reasonable conditions may be imposed to take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioners may abscond or tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The petition is allowed.

¶50

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in

¶51

Crime No.16 of 2021 of Kakati Police Station on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each

¶52

¶53

with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of

¶54

the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶55

a). The petitioners shall not commit similar offences.

¶56

b). The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶57

c). The petitioners shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶58

It is needless to state that, in case, if the petitioners

¶59

violate any of these conditions, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

*bgn/-

Maruti Balu Kitawadakar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Balu Kitawadakar 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

Kumar S/O Siddappa Swateppagol @ Godchi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Milind S/O Tanaji Kadolkar Vs Shri. Naveed S/O Nazafali Khatib

Saresh K P @ Suresh S/O K.P.Dinesh Vs Suresh Babu S/O Sathyanarayana Rao

Sri. Kumar S/O Maruti Hanamikki Vs the State of Karnataka

Saddam Hussain S/O Bashasab Pailwan Vs the State of Karnataka

Manju S/O Yallappa Doddamani Vs the State of Karnataka