Dismissed

Shri Manjunath Shivaji Faroji v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2023CRL.P/102099/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused who was an active participant in a fatal affray. The court held that the petitioner's release would pose a risk of tampering with witnesses, further offending, or elimination by a rival gang, noting that bail granted to a co-accused did not benefit him.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition filed u/Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

Shri Manjunath Shivaji Faroji Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11924 CRL.P No. 102099 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102099 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. MANJUNATH SHIVAJI FAROJI, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALMESHWAR NAGAR, SULEBHAVI VILLAGE, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH MARIHAL POLICE, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI, REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING THIS COURT TO, ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.138/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI IN CONNECTION WITH MARIHAL P S FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 143, 147, 148, 302, 120B R/W 149 OF IPC, SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 IS CONCERNED.

¶14

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

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11924 CRL.P No. 102099 of 2023

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.4 has filed this petition u/sec.439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) to grant him bail in Crime No.138/2022 of Marihal Police Station for the offences punishable u/sec.143, 147, 148, 302 r/w/s 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’).

¶18

In support of his petition, the petitioner has contended that he has not committed the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated. There are no cogent reliable and acceptable circumstances or evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. There is no motive for the petitioner to commit the offence. Petitioner was arrested on 08.10.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed and therefore there are no chances of tampering with the witnesses. Petitioner is the only earning member of the family. On account of his custody, his family members are suffering. Petitioner is ready and willing to

¶19

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11924 CRL.P No. 102099 of 2023

¶20

abide by any conditions that may be imposed and offer substantial surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Already accused No.2-Yalleshi Hunkaripatil is granted bail by the trial Court and prays to allow the petition.

¶21

Learned HCGP submitted oral objections stating that deceased Prakash Hunkaripatil was the brother of complainant-Vinod Patil @ Hunkaripatil. Deceased Prakash Hunkaripatil was moving with deceased Mahesh @ Ranadheer Murari. Accused No.1-Shashikant Misale, accused No.2-Yalleshi Hunkaripatil, accused No.3-Devappa Kukadolli, accused No.4-Manjunath Paroji, accused No.5Santosh Hanabarakatti and accused No.6-Bharamanna Naik were members of one group. There used to be frequent quarrel and fights between the accused gang and the gang of deceased Malleshi Murari. On 05.10.2022 after the procession of Durgamata, accused No.1-Shashikant Misale, accused No.2-Yalleshi Hunkaripatil quarrelled with deceased Prakash Hunkaripatil and gave threat that they are going to kill him and deceased Mahesh Murari.

¶22

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11924 CRL.P No. 102099 of 2023

¶23

3.1 In this background on 06.10.2022 at 9.00 p.m.

¶24

while complainant was in the house, Arun Babu Badaki came and informed that at 8.45 p.m. he and his friends Laxmikant Dandakar, Deepak Hunkaripatil were sitting on the platform of Ganapati Temple situated near Shivaji statue and deceased Prakash Hunkaripatil and Mahesh @ Ranadheer Murari were also there. At that time, Accused No.1-Shashikant Misale, accused No.2-Malleshi Hunkaripatil, accused No.3-Devappa Kukadolli, accused No.4-Manjunath Paroji, accused No.5-Santosh Hanabarakatti and accused No.6-Bharamanna Naik came there armed with sword, jambe, chopper and assaulted Mahesh @ Ranadheer Murari and Prakash Hunkaripatil and killed them on the spot. Immediately complainant went to the spot and found the dead body of his brother Prakash Hunkaripatil with several injuries. His right forearm was also severed. The dead body of Mahesh @ was also there with severe injuries. On account of rivalry and enmity, both deceased were attacked by the accused persons and killed them on the spot.

¶25

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11924 CRL.P No. 102099 of 2023

¶26

3.2 Based on the complaint, case is registered in Crime No.138/2022 for the offences punishable u/sec.143, 147, 148, 302 r/w/s 149 IPC and investigation was taken up. All the accused were arrested. The post-mortem reports reveal that the deceased were assaulted indiscriminately and they have sustained several injuries. This is a case of fight between two rival groups. There are specific allegations against petitioner. If released on bail, there is every likelihood of petitioner threatening and tampering with the witnesses and also indulging in similar offences. He may also abscond. There is also possibility of he being targeted by the rival group and prays to reject the petition.

¶27

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶28

As evident from the charge sheet, there are two

¶29

rival rowdy gangs in Sulebhavi village of Belagavi taluk consisting of deceased Mahesh Ranadheer Murari, Prakash Hunkaripatil, Arunbabu Badaki, Deepak Hunkaripatil, Ravi Kedari Misale, Yallappa Ninganagouda, Laxmikant Dandakar and Parashuram Nagari on the one hand and

¶30

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11924 CRL.P No. 102099 of 2023

¶31

Accused No.1-Shashikant Misale, accused No.2-Yalleshi Hunkaripatil, accused No.3-Devappa Kukadolli, accused No.4-Manjunath Paroji, accused No.5-Santosh Hanabarakatti and accused No.6-Bharamanna Naik on the other hand. There was constant rivalry between the two groups.

¶32

Infact, on the previous day i.e. on 06.10.2022, after the immersion of Sri Durgamatadevi, deceased Prakash Hunkaripatil assaulted A2-Yalleshi Hunkaripatil with knife and the accused gang deliberated that the gang of deceased is going to eliminate them one by one and before that they should kill the gang of deceased and accordingly, on 06.10.2022, the accused persons assaulted deceased Mahesh and Prakash Hunkaripatil. As a result of the assault, both of them died instantaneously at the spot.

¶33

The detailed investigation makes out a strong

¶34

prima facie case regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the crime in question. He has actively

¶35

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11924 CRL.P No. 102099 of 2023

¶36

participated and carried out the assault. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that he is not entitled for bail. As rightly submitted by the learned HCGP, in the event of releasing on bail, there is every likelihood of petitioner threatening and tampering with the witnesses and also involving himself in similar offences. He may also abscond as there is threat to his life by the members of the opposite gang. He is also at the risk of being assaulted or eliminated by the rival gang. Having regard to the active participation of the petitioner in the crime, the fact that accused No.2-Yalleshi Hunkaripatil is granted bail by

¶37

the trial Court would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. Taking into consideration all these factors, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for bail and accordingly, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

Petition filed U/sec.439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

CLK

Shri Manjunath Shivaji Faroji v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Manjunath Shivaji Faroji 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

Prasad S/O Suresh Badiger Vs the State of Karnataka

Jagadish Bhavarlal Daya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Bhushan S Kadam S/O Shivanand Kadam Vs the State of Karnataka

Vidya Anandu Shetty Vs Suprabhata Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamita

Smt. Devi Prasannan D/O Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Farhana Alias Parveen W/O Khaja Hussain Vs the State of Karnataka