STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. CHIKKARANGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the all powerful and mighty state of Karnataka through its additional state public prosecutor, sri. B.r. nanjundaiah, has filed a petition under Section 439(2) cr. P.c. for cancelling bail granted to these 21 respondents by the sessions judge, tumkur (for short 'the sessions judge') in SC 13/90 by order dated 30-3-1990. These respondents are charge-sheeted by kunigal police for offences punishable under sections 143,147,148,1149,341,321, 326,506,307 and 302 read with Section 114, IPC. As per charge-sheet allegations, these respondents and a-9 are alleged to have made a brutal and barbaric attack on one h.b. boralingaiah (deceased) in broad day light at about 9 a.m. on friday the 15th september, 1989 in the heart of a village called jodi hosahalli in kunigal taluk situate at a distance of about 25 kms. From kunigal police station by making a fatal assault on him with lethal weapons just in front of the house of one guddaiah and causing him as many as 22 grievous injuries to which he succumbed at about 4-30 p.m. on the same day when he was being brought to Bangalore hospital for treatment of those injuries. The said murderous assault is stated to have been made in the backdrop of long-standing ill-will and political rivalry said to be existing between the deceased and these 21 respondents as alleged by the prosecution. Except the 21st accused, who surrendered before the court on some date in january, 1990, the remaining 21 accused were arrested on 3-10-1989 and 5-10-1989 in crime No. 253/89 registered at kunigal police station at about 12-45 p.m. on 15-9-1989 for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 321, 326, 506, 307 and 302, IPC read with Section, 114 IPC on the complaint lodged by boraiah, younger brother of deceased h.b. boralingaiah.

(2.) all the 21 accused had filed bail petition sunder Section 439, cr. P.c. before the learned sessions judge in cri. Misc. C. Nos. 286/89 and 331/89. Bail was granted by the learned sessions judge to 9th accused (r4) only on medical grounds by order dated 4-11-89 and bail was rejected to all the remaining 20 accused, namely, to these respondents who are stated to be accused nos. 1 to 8 and 10 to 21 as the case was still under investigation then, it appears that these respondents had filed fresh bail petition before this court also and it was withdrawn by them in order to test their luck after investigation was completed.

(3.) after completing the investigation, kunigal police filed a charge-sheet against all the accused for the above mentioned offences in the court of the j.m.f.c., kunigal who promptly committed the case to the sessions court, tumkur, for the trial of the accused for the above mentioned offences. Sometime thereafter, these 21 respondents-accused filed a fresh bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the learned sessions judge. By order dated 30-3-1990, learned sessions judge came to the conclusion that the investigating agency had collected sufficient material in regard to the homicidal death of deceased boralingaiah due to as many as 22 injuries inflicted on him and, in particular, damage caused to his brain as mentioned in the p.m. report; that the materials produced by the prosecution are sufficient to believe that the accused have committed the offences alleged against them and in particular the offence of murder punishable with death or imprisonment for life and, therefore, it was not a fit case to release any of the accused on bail, much less, accused No. 21 (respondent No. 21 herein) in view of the statements of several eye-witnesses and also the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by him and also the first accused before c.ws. 21 and 22 in kalasipalyam bus-stand, Bangalore at about 7 p.m. on 18-9-1989. Learned sessions judge further observed in paragraph-7 of his order that on the face of it, there are no changed circumstances to re-consider the question of bail on merits. However, he thought it proper to grant bail to these 21 respondents on the grounds that 7th accused is an old man, 11th accused is an old and infirm person, 16th accused was a sick person as he is suffering from abdominal pain, 17th accused is also a sick person as he is suffering from t.b., 21st accused is a sick person as he is suffering from chronic abdominal pain and all the accused except a-9 were in judicial custody for a considerable period. In coming to that conclusion, he also took into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents-accused that sessions case No. 13/90 may be treated as custody case for the purpose of trial on priority basis and the trial date may be fixed immediately after framing of charges. Therefore, he granted bail to all the 21 respondents-accused imposing on them the usual conditions in addition to the 5th condition that the sessions case shall be treated as a custody case for the purpose of trial on priority.