SUBHASH RAMAPPA BANDI Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth for brevity referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') praying to grant bail to this petitioner (accused no.1) in Shirahatti Police Station Crime No. 228/2017, which is numbered as Criminal Misc. No. 171/2018, on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 450, 452, 302, 307, 324, 326, 504, 506, 436, 427, 120-b, 109 r/w section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth for brevity referred to as 'IPC').

(2.) The summary of the case of the prosecution is that one Sri. Ramappa Hanamappa Bandi has filed a complaint before the respondent-police on 12.11.2017. The summary of the said complaint is that the complainant along with his wife and sister-in-law is residing at Belavatti village of Shirahatti Taluk. His one son is residing at Bailahongal and another at Udupi. His daughter by name Smt. Vishala was given in marriage to one Sannappa Hanumappa Honnanavar of the same village. Since about 15 days prior to the incident, the said daughter (Vishala) was staying in her parents' house. As such, his son-in-law i.e. Sannappa also used to visit the said house in the night and to sleep there. The younger sister of Sannappa by name Renavva was given in marriage to the accused/present petitioner-Subhash Ramappa Bandi. Due to family dispute between the couples, since about 5 to 6 months, the said Renavva staying in the house of his brother - Sannappa. For the reason that she was not sent back to her husband's house, about 8 days prior to the incident, the present petitioner (husband of Renavva) had initiated quarrel with said Renavva and assaulted her. In that connection, there was an altercation and a fight between the complainant's family and all the accused. In that regard, complaint was also registered at Shirahatti Police Station. After that incident, the present petitioner/accused No. 1 and his group members was exhibiting their enmity against the family of the complainant and were openly declaring in the village that they are going to kill Sannappa, the complainant and his family. Being scared by such life threat, the complainant and his family members used to spend their night in the house of Sri. Govindappa, the younger brother of the complainant. It is further stated in the complaint that accordingly, when that being the situation, on the night of 11.11.2017, while the complainant, his bother-in-law (Sannappa) and Smt. Hanamavva (the mother of said Sannappa) and others were sleeping in the house, at about 00.15 hours, the accused joined by other 27 persons, armed with deadly weapons, broke open the door of the complainant and started assaulting them. The complainant has stated that in the charger battery light he has identified each one of them. He has also stated that the present petitioner/accused No. 1 was objecting to Sannappa as to he sheltering his sister Renavva (wife of accused No. 1) declared that he is going to kill each of them. In that process, the present petitioner/accused No. 1 with the chopper that he was holding, assaulted the deceased Sannappa on his hands and legs. All other accused also started assaulting the deceased with the clubs they were holding and the mob also destroyed and damaged the articles at the home. When the complainant, the mother of deceased Sannappa and other persons rushed to rescue of the assaulted Sannappa, the mob prevented them and assaulted them also. After heavily assaulting the Sannappa and declaring that the Sannappa is dead, they left the place. However, while the injured was being shifted to treatment to a higher medical treatment to Gadag hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. The complaint was registered against 28 accused for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 450, 452, 302, 307, 324, 326, 504, 506, 436, 427, 120(B), 109 read with 149 of IPC and Investigating Officer has completed investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused. The present petitioner is accused No. 1 in the charge sheet.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that accused No. 1/petitioner is in judicial custody since more than 8 months, the investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. As such, there is no necessity for continuation of the accused in judicial custody. He further submitted that the other 27 accused have already been enlarged on bail by the very same Court. However, the earlier bail petition of the present petitioner was rejected by this Court. In view of the fact that now the charge sheet is filed, in the changed circumstances, the present petitioner be enlarged on bail.