Dismissed

Sri Jattoji Rao @ Appaiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2022CRL.P/7314/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding it a case of no merits and unfit for bail discretion due to specific allegations of active participation and recovery of incriminating evidence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial expediently.

Sri Jattoji Rao @ Appaiah Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7314 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SRI JATTOJI RAO @ APPAIAH S/O LATE GANGOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶9

2 . SRI SRINIVASA RAO @ MOTTU S/O LATE GANGOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF

¶11

CHARAKAMMATTENAHALLI THONDEBHAVI HOBLI GOWRIBIDANURU TALUKU CHIKKABALLAPURA – 572 121.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE, ADV.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO OF MANCHENALLI POLICE STATION REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU – 560 001

¶16

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶17

¶18

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND RELEASE THEM ON BAIL, IN CRIME NO.231/2021 OF MANCHENAHALLI POLICE STATION AND IN S.C.NO.19/2022 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 427, 302, 143, 149 OF IPC & ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No.231/2021 of Manchenahalli Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 302, 143, 149 read with Section 34 of IPC pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura S.C.No.19/2022.

¶23

The brief factual matrix leading to the case is that the wife of the deceased Aswatharam lodged a complaint wherein allegations were levelled against accused Nos.1 to 4 that there was a quarrel between

¶24

¶25

them and deceased with regard to tomato crops. It is further asserted that on the date of the incident when the husband of the complainant went near the subject land to pluck the tomatoes in the early morning at 6.45 am, accused Nos.1 to 4 is said to have assaulted

¶26

the husband of the complainant and when the same was brought to the complainant’s notice, she went along with her son and found her injured husband. He had sustained injuries on his chest and on enquiry, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted her husband and damaged the car. In this regard, she lodged a complaint. On the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer had undertaken the investigation and apprehended the petitioners. The material objects were also recovered including blood stained clothes and wooden club from the present petitioners and other accused. The Investigating Officer found that there is sufficient material evidence as against the present petitioners and other accused. Hence, he

¶27

¶28

submitted the charge sheet. The petitioners had approached the learned Sessions Court seeking regular bail and the same came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶29

Heard the arguments advanced by the

¶30

learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that except the present petitioners, the other accused have already been granted bail by this Court by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.Nos.4125/2022, 4128/2022 and 4414/2022 and

¶32

hence, the petitioners who are standing on the same footing are entitled for bail. He also contend that the investigation is concluded and charge sheet has been

¶33

laid down and there is no question of tampering the prosecution witness. He would also undertake to abide

¶34

¶35

by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court.

¶36

Per contra , learned High Court Government

¶37

Pleader seriously object the bail petition on the ground that CW-2 to 5 are the eye witnesses. Blood stained clothes of the present petitioners and one wooden club were recovered at the instance of the present petitioners. Hence, he would contend that there is active participation of the petitioners in commission of the offences and seeks for rejection of the bail petition.

¶38

Having heard both sides and on perusal of the records, it is evident that the charge sheet has been submitted as against 10 accused persons. The present petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3. Although the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the other accused have been released as general/common allegations have been made

¶39

¶40

regarding assault on the deceased by stone and wooden club, as there is no specific individual overt act referred. However, on perusal of the charge sheet, it is evident that all the accused dragged the deceased to the spot and petitioner No.1 assaulted by stone on the forehead of the deceased causing fatal injuries and then caused damage to the vehicle of the deceased. Further it is also alleged that petitioner No.2 has assaulted by wooden club on the chest of the deceased and also assaulted on his right eye which has resulted in fatal injuries. The post mortem report made available discloses that the deceased has suffered head injuries as well as injury to the right eye brow. The post mortem report discloses that the death is due to internal bleeding.

¶41

The main contention of the learned counsel

¶42

for the petitioners is that the other accused have been granted bail and on the ground of parity, he is seeking

¶43

¶44

bail. While considering the bail petitions pertaining to other accused as referred above, the Court has considered the individual overt acts as referred in the charge sheet and it is asserted that there was no specific overacts alleged as against those accused involved in those criminal petitions. In the present case as against the present petitioners there are specific allegations regarding active participation and specific overacts. Hence, the ground of parity cannot be made applicable to the present petitioners. Further it is also important to note that the wooden log and blood stained clothes of petitioners are also recovered at their instances. There is no explanation regarding blood stains found on the clothes of the present petitioners.

¶45

Looking to these facts and circumstances,

¶46

this is not a fit case wherein discretion can be exercised in favour of the present petitioners. Merely

¶47

¶48

because the petitioners are in custody for ten months and the investigation is concluded, alone cannot be a ground for admitting the petitioners for bail as there is every possibility they tampering eye witness during the course of trial. Hence, the petition being devoid of merits, does not survives for consideration.

¶49

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

¶50

Since the petitioners are in custody, the

¶51

Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

KPS

Sri Jattoji Rao @ Appaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jattoji Rao @ Appaiah v. 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

Neeraj Kumar Chadha Vs State of Haryana

Sri Aleem Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Hari @ Penubala Hari Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt Jyothi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. P. Naveen Kumar Vs the Sriram General Insurance

Darshan Gowda v Vs the State of Karnataka