Kumara Swamy S/O Channappa Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND GRANT BAIL, ORDERING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.1) ON BAIL IN S.C.NO. 74/2024 (CHORANURU P.S. CRIME NO. 62/2024 REGISTERED ON 20.05.2024), FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 302, 504, 506 R/W. 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6364 CRL.P No. 101243 of 2025

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶24

Heard Sri.Girish V. Bhat, learned counsel for the

¶25

petitioner and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent.

¶26

Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶27

with the following prayer:

¶28

“WHEREFORE, the petitioner most respectfully pray that;

¶29

This Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the petition and grant bail, ordering to release the petitioner (accused No.1) on bail in SC No.74/2024 (Choranuru P.S. Crime No.62/2024 registered on 20.05.2024), for the offence punishable under Section 323, 302, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC on the file of learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶30

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for

¶31

disposal of the petition are as under:

¶32

3.1. Smt.Eshwaramma, wife of Devandrappa, filed a

¶33

complaint with Choranuru Police Station, Ballari District on 20.05.2024 for the offences punishable under Section 323,

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6364 CRL.P No. 101243 of 2025

¶35

307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC which was registered in Crime No.62/2024 against the petitioner and two others.

¶36

3.2. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal

¶37

that on 20.05.2024, at about 8.00 p.m., complainant visited the police station and lodged a complaint alleging that on 17.05.2024 at about 7.00 a.m., when herself, her husband (Devendrappa) and her son – Sharat Kumar had been to their agricultural land. They noticed that present petitioner was tilling the land belonged to them with the help of a tractor. When the husband of the complainant questioned the petitioner, he picked up the quarrel with them and abused them in filthy language and told them land of the complainant’s lies somewhere on the upper side of the land, where tilling was in progress and assaulted Devandrappa with axe on his head resulting in blood injury. There was heavy bleeding and Devandrappa fell down.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6364 CRL.P No. 101243 of 2025

¶40

3.3. He was shifted to hospital on a motorcycle at

¶41

Choranuru. Thereafter, for higher treatment he was shifted to Kudalgi and thereafter, he was shifted to Ballari and finally, to NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru.

¶42

3.4. But despite best treatment, he did not survive and therefore, complaint was lodged by wife of

¶43

Devandrappa.

¶44

After lodging the complaint, Devandrappa died and therefore, police invoked Section 302 of IPC in the pending FIR and after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet.

¶45

Complainant and her son are the eye witnesses

¶46

to the incident apart from other witnesses who have pacified the quarrel and seen the incident.

¶47

The attempt made by the petitioner to obtain

¶48

an order of grant of bail is rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6364 CRL.P No. 101243 of 2025

¶50

7. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court

¶51

seeking grant of bail.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating

¶53

the grounds urged in the petition contended that death of Devandrappa did not take place immediately. Therefore, offence under Section 302 of IPC is per se not attracted in the case on hand.

¶54

He would further contend that on account of land dispute, it is the deceased who was aggressive party and provoked the present petitioner. In the incident, Devandrappa sustained injuries on account of fall and since the charge sheet is filed, continuation of the accused in the custody is no longer warranted and sought for grant of bail.

¶55

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail grounds.

¶56

She would further contend that eye witnesses have specifically stated before the Investigation Officer

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6364 CRL.P No. 101243 of 2025

¶58

with graphic details about the incident and till they are examined as witnesses before the Court, grant of bail to the petitioner is impermissible as there is a possibility of threat to the life of the complainant, who is none other than the wife of the deceased and so also, to her son and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶59

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶60

On such perusal, it is seen that petitioner is none other than cousin brother of the deceased. Admittedly, there was a land dispute and genesis of the crime, according to the prosecution petitioner was tilling the land with the help of tractor that has fallen to the share of the deceased. Same was questioned by the deceased when he had been to his agricultural land along with his wife (complainant) and his son who are the eye witnesses to the incident.

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6364 CRL.P No. 101243 of 2025

¶62

In the incident, it is alleged that present petitioner assaulted the deceased with axe on the head. Admittedly, there was a head injury and therefore, he was shifted to higher medical treatment from Choranuru to Kudalgi and Kudalgi to Ballari and finally, to NIMHANS at Bengaluru.

¶63

However, because of the intracranial hemorrhage, Devendrappa did not survive. Since the eye witnesses are yet to be examined in the trial, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution is just and reasonable and has got sufficient force; more so, having regard to the previous enmity nurtured by the petitioner.

¶64

All these facts when taken into consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie material on record, at this stage, would definitely disentitle the petitioner from obtaining an order of grant of bail by resorting to the special powers vested in this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. at least for the time being.

¶65