SHIVAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seek to grant them bail in connection with crime No. 84/2014 of Kolhar Police Station now registered as CC No. 353/2014 on the file of JMFC Court, Basavana Bagewadi registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the FIR, complaint and the order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the bail petition filed by these petitioners along with accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits accused No. 1 Akash wanted to grab the property of his aunt Gangavva, but his sister by name Baby by obtaining a GPA got the sale deed of the property of Gangavva registered in her favour and that there was some dispute between accused No. 1 Akash, his sister Baby and Gangavva. As the deceased was assisting said Baby in that suit, Accused No. 1 has developed jealousy against him. According to complaint lodged by son of the deceased when complainant, his father, his elder sister Shantabai, younger sister Gangubai and his friends Chandrashekhar Ullagaddi were sitting in front of their house, five persons came in two motorcycles. Noticing the same, the complainant went inside the house and locked the door. He has further stated in the complaint that petitioners and three other persons joining together assaulted the deceased with sickle (Koitha), which resulted in the death of deceased thereby his submission is that petitioners who are accused Nos. 2 and 3 had no intention either to assault the deceased or to cause his death. His further submission is that they are unnecessarily involved in the case. The Sessions Court without considering these material aspects in the matter has committed an error in not granting them bail though charge sheet has been filed and there was no apprehension that they would either tamper the prosecution witnesses or meddle with the investigation if they are granted bail. With this, he prays for allowing the petition by granting bail to the petitioners.

(3.) EVEN according to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the dispute relating to the land was among accused No. 1, his sister Baby and his aunt Gangavva and therefore it is understandable that it is because of the said dispute, the complaint is lodged against accused No. 1. But his submission is petitioners who are accused No. 2 and 3 are nothing to do with the said dispute and the complaint against them is false. But he is unable to submit as to why the complainant -CW. 1, CWs. 9 to 11 stated before the police that accused No. 1 and petitioners have together assaulted the deceased with Koitha and caused his death. He has also not furnished any material to show petitioners were not present at the spot when the incident was taken place. The police during investigation recovered the Koithas from the possession of A.1 and these petitioners. Bloodstains found in the cloth of petitioners do tally with that of the blood group of the deceased. In the post -mortem report cause of death is stated that it is on account of injuries sustained to vital part i.e., neck which tallies with the nature of injury indicated in the post -mortem report. Overt -act alleged in the complaint, FIR and the charge sheet tallies with that of the injuries indicated in the post -mortem report and it is the cause for the death as per the opinion expressed in the post -mortem report. If that is the case, it is not safe to grant bail to the petitioners. Hence, petition is rejected.