IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1648/2019 BETWEEN:
1. L K SHIVANNAA S/O KADUMUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
2 . L.M. THIMMAPPA S/O KIVUDA MUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
3 . S MURTHAPPA, S/O SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
4 . KARIBASAPPA, S/O PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
5 . GURUMURTHI, S/O PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
6 . MUDDAPPA S/O MADURE MUDALAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
7 . MURALIDHARA, S/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
8 . ERAPPA, S/O GUTTHISIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
9 . H.R. MUDDAPPA, S/O REVANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
10 . KAMAKKA, W/O SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
11 . THIMMANNA S/O MUDALAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
12 . MUDDULINGAPPA S/O GANAJJU DORE MUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
13 . KADPPA, S/O DORE MUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
14 . YATHISH, S/O KADA SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
15 . RAGHU, S/O H.R. MUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.
16 . MADHU, S/O SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.
17 . AMRUTHKUMAR, S/O SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
18 . RATHNAMMA, W/O L.M. THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
19 . THIPPAMMA, W/O GURUSIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
20 . JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
21 . RATHNAMMA, W/O LAKKAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
22 . MUDDAPPA, S/O MUDALAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
23 . SATHISH, S/O THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
24 . DEVARAJ, S/O REVANNA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
25 . SUNANDHAMMA W/O NEELAKANTESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
26 . MUDDULINGAPPA MESTRU MATTOD AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
27 . VIJAYAKUMARI, W/O MURULIDHARA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
28 . CHANDRAMMA, W/O H.R. MUDDANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
29 . MUDDLINGAPPA, S/O DORU MUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
30 . SARVAMMA, W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
31 . KRISHNAMURTHY S/O L.K SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
32 . RATHNAMMA, W/O LAKKAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
33 . SARVAMMA, W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, A-1 TO 7, 9 TO 15, 17 TO 35 ARE AGRICULTURIST, R/AT LAKKIHALLI VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TQ, CHITRADURGA DIST.577501.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI MANJUNATH N.D., ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . KANUMAPPA S/O OBANNA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT LAKKIHALLI VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501 2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH S.H.O HOSADURGA P.S CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501 REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BENGALURU-01. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ROHITH B.J., HCGP., R-1 SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO. 472/2018 OF HOSADURGA P.S., CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SETION 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506 R/W 149 0F IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2) (v-a), 3(1)(c), 3(1)(za) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Respondent No.1 though served with notice, remained absent as per the submission made by learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for 2nd respondent – State. Perused the records.
3. This Court, after considering the factual matrix of the case to the effect that on 15.11.2018, there was verbal altercation between two groups of villagers regarding performance of rituals to the God Muddulingeshwara and during such altercation, petitioners herein had by using stones and wooden planks committed rioting and also abused the complainant referring to his caste and that said allegations made against the petitioners being omni bus allegations made by one group of persons against other group and that as to who amongst the petitioners actually uttered abusive words referring to the caste of the complainant have to be proved during the course of full dressed trial, exercising its discretionary power has already granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners vide order dated 19.06.2019 and issued notice to the complainant.
4. As noted above, the complainant remained absent in spite of service of notice. Therefore, there is no need for this Court to modify the order or to interfere with the order passed by this Court granting interim anticipatory bail. Even considering the factual matrix of the case, there is no reasons for this Court to deviate from the earlier stand taken by this Court. Therefore, interim order passed by this Court deserves to be made absolute.
5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
Interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners by this Court vide order dated 19.06.2019 is hereby made absolute. As per condition No.1, petitioners have executed bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety before the Investigating Officer. However, petitioners are now directed to appear before the jurisdictional Court and execute their personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one surety for the like- sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the Court in future. Rest of the conditions are left undisturbed.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS