Dismissed

Sulaiah @ Hanumantharayappa v. State by Hebbur Police Station

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2022CRL.P/8338/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two separate criminal petitions filed jointly for bail under Section 439 CrPC were dismissed as both petitioners are accused in a criminal case involving grievous injuries and assault resulting in an attempt on life against the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Petitions seeking bail for the petitioners were dismissed as they are not fit cases for exercise of discretion in their favour.

Sulaiah @ Hanumantharayappa Vs State by… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8338/2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.8393/2022

¶7

CRL.P No.8338/2022:

¶8

BETWEEN : -------------Sulaiah @ Hanumantharayappa S/o Narasimhaiah Aged about 35 years R/at Naruganahalli Village Gulur Hobli Tumakuru Taluk - 577 556.

¶9

Note:Name of petitioner in the FIR is shown as Sulaiah But he is also Called as Hanumantharayappa. … PETITIONER

¶10

(By Sri M B Chandra Chooda, Advocate)

¶11

AND : ------State by Hebbur Police Station Kyathasandra Circle Tumakuru Represented by learned SPP

¶12

¶13

Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka High Court Building Bengaluru - 560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶14

(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP)

¶15

This Crl.P. is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C with a prayer to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.149/2022 of Hebbur P.S., Tumakuru District for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 447, 307, 324 R/W 34 of IPC and etc.

¶16

CRL.P No.8393/2022

¶17

BETWEEN : -------------Sri Puttaraju @ Puttaswamy S/o Kallaiah Aged about 38 years R/at Naruganahalli Village Gulur Hobli Tumakuru Taluk - 577 556.

¶18

Note:Name of petitioner in the FIR is shown as Puttaraju But he is also Called as Puttaswamy. … PETITIONER (By Sri M B Chandra Chooda, Advocate)

¶19

AND : ------State by Hebbur Police Station Kyathasandra Circle Tumakuru

¶20

¶21

Represented by learned SPP Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka High Court building Bengaluru - 560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶22

(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP)

¶23

¶24

These petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court passed the following;

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail crime No. 149/2022 of Hebbur Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 324, 307 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶27

Petitioner in Crl.P. No. 8338/2022 is accused

¶28

No. 2 while petitioner in Crl.P. No. 8393/2022 is

¶29

accused No. 1.

¶30

¶31

Heard the learned counsels for the petitioners

¶32

as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader

¶33

for the respondent - State and perused the records.

¶34

The allegations of the prosecution are that in

¶35

Naragunahalli village the complainant - Nagaraj was possessing 3 acres 2 guntas of ancestral lands in survey No. 105/5. It is asserted that he had planted 60 mango saplings and 60 coconut saplings. On 01.07.2022 both the petitioners had grazed their goat in the said land. On 02.07.2022 morning, at about 08.00 am, they were

¶36

grazing the goat in the said land again and when the complainant objected for grazing the goat in his land, they damaged mango saplings and accused No. 2 - Sulaiah threw chilly powder in the eyes of the complainant and accused No. 1 - Puttaraju assaulted on

¶37

the neck of the complainant by a chopper. It is also alleged that Sulaiah also assaulted by a club on the head of the complainant. It is also alleged that one

¶38

¶39

Eeranna rushed to the spot and pacified the dispute and thereafter the petitioners fled away. It is also alleged that the complainant was shifted to Manjunatha Nursing Home in Shetty Halli and from there to Maruthi Nursing Home situated in ring road and later on he was shifted to Tumakuru Government Hospital wherein the complaint came to be lodged. The petitioners had approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking regular bail and the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶41

contend that the petitioners are in custody since last four months and charge sheet has been already submitted. He would also contend that there are certain civil disputes between the parties and also submits that the contention that the petitioners had gone for grazing the goat in the early morning cannot be accepted and

¶42

¶43

that too, carrying chilly powder is not acceptable story. He contends that petitioners also undertake to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he would seek for admitting the petitioners on bail.

¶44

Per contra, learned HCGP would seriously

¶45

object for granting of bail to the petitioners asserting that grievous injuries have been caused on the neck of the complainant and there was an attempt on his life and hence she would seek for rejection of the bail petitions.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶47

and perusing the allegations, it is seen that on 01.07.2022 petitioners had grazed the goat in the land of the complainant and on the next day also they were grazing the goat and when objected to by the complainant, the assault had taken place. The wound certificate issued by the Government Hospital discloses

¶48

¶49

that the complainant had suffered a big lacerated

¶50

wound over the left side of neck measuring 10 X 3 X 4 cms deep exposing muscles and neurovascular system with fresh bleeding. The nature of injury clearly discloses that the injury was on the vital part of the body and it was serious. Further the medical report also discloses that the said injury is a grievous injury and age of the said wound is less than six hours. The alleged incident is said to have taken place at about 08.00 am and the injured was admitted to the District Hospital at about 09.42 am. There is no delay and complaint was

¶51

lodged in the hospital itself. No doubt charge sheet has been submitted after completion of investigation. But, submission of charge sheet does not give any right to

¶52

the petitioners to claim any bail as a matter of right.

¶53

The contention of the learned counsel for the

¶54

petitioners that it is not possible to go for grazing the goat in the early morning cannot be accepted.

¶55

¶56

The nature of injuries itself discloses that the petitioners aimed at the neck of the complainant and it could have become fatal. Looking to these facts and circumstances this is too early for consideration of bail petitions filed by the petitioners. Considering the nature and gravity of offences, these are not fit cases where any discretion can be exercised in favour of the petitioners. Hence, petitions being devoid of any merits does not survive for consideration. Hence, both the petitions are dismissed.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE.

¶58

LRS.

Sulaiah @ Hanumantharayappa v. State by Hebbur Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulaiah @ Hanumantharayappa v. State by Hebbur Police Station

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. Arun Alias Delhi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Devappa Nayak Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Rouf Vs the State of Karnataka

The Regional Manager Vs Sandhya

Mr Sunil Alias Sundili Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Rizwan Vs the State of Karnataka