CHANNABASAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Petition No.101928/2022 is filed by accused No.1 and Criminal Petition No.101936/2022 is filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 under Sec. 439 and 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ' Cr.P.C .' for brevity) for granting regular bail and anticipatory bail, respectively, in C.C. No.83/2020 and pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hirekerur for the offence punishable under Ss. 279 , 338 , 304A , 201 and 420 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ' IPC ' for brevity).

(2.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and Sri. Shubhendu Akalawadi counsel for respondent No.2.

(3.) The case of the complainant is that, accused No.1 is stated to be the driver of the tractor trailer. Accused No.3 is stated to be the owner and accused No.2 is stated to be another son of accused No.3. That on 19/2/2017, the complainant asked the driver to bring his wife and child in the tractor. Subsequently, accused No.1 stated to have informed that, while getting down, due to imbalance, his wife fell down and sustained injuries and his son also fell down and sustained injuries. After intimation, the victims were taken to the hospital. His wife succumbed to the injuries. Subsequently, UDR No.8/2017 under Sec. 174 of Cr.P.C was registered and the police said to have closed the matter. Therefore, the complainant-respondent No.2 filed a private complaint before the trial court and the complaint was got referred to the police under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and in turn the police after investigation filed 'B' final report. Subsequently, the same was challenged by the complainant and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate for the aforesaid offence. After registration of the case, the police arrested accused No.1 on 18/4/2022. His bail petition came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and accused Nos.2 and 3 apprehending their arrest have also approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail which came to be rejected. Hence, they are before this Court.