Allowed

Hanumanth Bhimanna Harapanalli v. the Police Sub Inspector

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2024CRL.A/100007/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a caste-atrocity case involving death of complainant's father sought regular bail after trial court rejection. Noting no weapon was used, the hospital admission history did not mention assault, the complaint was belated, and investigation was complete with charge sheet filed, the court found serious doubt about the allegations and enlarged the accused on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; accused enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, subject to regular appearance and no tampering or leaving jurisdiction without permission.

Hanumanth Bhimanna Harapanalli Vs the Police Sub Inspector — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2306 CRL.A No. 100007 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100007 OF 2024 (U/S 14 A(2) OF

¶7

SC AND ST ACT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

HANUMANTH BHIMANNA HARAPANALLI AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. NYASARGI PLOT, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR THROUGH MUNDGOD POLICE STATION, U.K. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶13

MALATESH S/O. MANJUNATH BHOVI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. NYASARGI, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581349.

¶14

Digitally VIJAYALAXMI signed by M BHAT VIJAYALAXMI M BHAT

¶15

(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SERVED)

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF SC/ST ACT, SEEKING TO THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.1 MAY BE GRANTED BAIL IN MUNDAGOD PS CRIME NO. 158/2023 (SPECIAL CASE NO. 120/2023) CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 302, 504, 506 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(VA) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2015, AND SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED BY THE 2^ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE UTTARA KANNADA KARWAR SPECIAL CASE NO. 120/2023.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2306 CRL.A No. 100007 of 2024

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Accused No.1 in Special Case No.120/2023 pending

¶23

before the Court of II Additional District and Session Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, arising out of the Crime No.158/2023 registered by Mundagod Police Station, Uttara Kannada District, for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short, ‘the SC and ST Act’) is before this Court under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’).

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for he parties.

¶25

FIR in Crime No.158/2023 was registered by

¶26

Mundagod Police Station, Uttara kannada District, against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences on the basis of the complaint of Sri.Maltesh Manjunath Bhovi, dated 23.09.2023. During the course of the investigation

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2306 CRL.A No. 100007 of 2024

¶28

of the said case, petitioner was arrested on 23.09.2023 and remanded to the judicial custody. Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the trial Court in Special Case No.120/2023 was rejected on 21.12.2023. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent of the charge sheeted offences and he has been falsely implicated in the case. Deceased was admitted in the hospital on 21.09.2023 and the history of assault by the petitioner is not mentioned. Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

¶30

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the bail application. He submits that C.W.5 and 6 are the eye witnesses to the incident in question. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2306 CRL.A No. 100007 of 2024

¶32

In the complaint dated 23.09.2023, lodged by

¶33

the complainant-Sri.Maltesh Manjunath Bhovi, it is averred that he had received a phone call from his friend Rajeet S/o Ravi Hosamani-(C.W.-5), who had informed him that his father was not well. Immediately, complainant went to the village and on 21.09.2023 admitted his father to Government Hospital at Mundagod. He was allegedly informed by C.W.5 that his father was assaulted by the petitioner herein on 17.09.2023, after abusing him referring to his caste. Since the doctors in Government Hospital of Mundagod had advised the complainant to shift him to the better hospital, the complainant had shifted his father to KIMS, Hospital at Hubali on 23.09.2023 and thereafter, had lodged a complaint before the Police which has resulted in registering the FIR in Crime No.158/2023 initially for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC and ST Act. The complainant’s fatherManjunath Bhovi, subsequently died in the hospital on 02.10.2023, while undergoing treatment in the hospital

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2306 CRL.A No. 100007 of 2024

¶35

and thereafter, Section 302 of IPC was invoked against the accused.

¶36

The material available on record would go to

¶37

show that the father of the complainant was initially admitted in the Government hospital at Mundagod and the history of assault by the petitioner on 17.09.2023 was not mentioned while admitting him to the hospital. The complainant himself had accompanied his father on 21.09.2021 and admitted his father in the hospital. History given before the Government hospital was that his father had not eaten for four days and he was chronic alcoholic. The complaint was filed belatedly on 23.09.2023 which was after two days from the complainant admitting his father in the hospital and the allegation is now made, petitioner had referred to caste of the deceased and assaulted him with his hands and as result he had suffered injuries. Undisputedly, petitioner has not used any weapon to assault Manjunath Bhovi. Considering the history given by the complainant at the time of admitting his father to

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2306 CRL.A No. 100007 of 2024

¶39

the hospital, serious doubt arises with regard to the allegation made in the complaint against the petitioner. Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail is required to be answered in the affirmative. Accordingly the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

Petition is allowed.

¶42

The petitioner/accused No.1 is directed to be enlarged on bail in Special Case No.120/2023 pending before the Court of II Additional District and Session Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, arising out of the Crime No.158/2023 registered by Mundagod Police Station, Uttara Kannada District, for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC and ST Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2306 CRL.A No. 100007 of 2024

¶45

a. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/with 2 sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶46

b. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶47

c. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶48

d. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

¶51

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13

Hanumanth Bhimanna Harapanalli v. the Police Sub Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumanth Bhimanna Harapanalli v. the Police Sub Inspector

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 Basappa S/O Irappa Honnalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhimasheppa Aliyas Bhimappa S/O Dundappa Tapasi Vs the State of Karnataka

Manteshgouda S/O Ninganagouda Marigoudra Vs State of Karnataka

Archana D/O. Yallappa Betageri Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh S/O Pampapathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Raju S/O Jyanuba Alias Jayaram Saragar Vs the State of Karnataka