IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6931/2017 BETWEEN 1. SRI DHARMAPPA SON OF GURUSIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT BYALADAKERE VILLAGE, JAVAGAL HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 2. SRI JENUKALLAPPA SON OF GURUSIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT BYALADAKERE VILLAGE, JAVAGAL HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT (By SRI SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M., ADVOCATE) AND STATE BY JAVAGAL POLICE ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT BY SSP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 1 (By SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.No.7/2017 OF JAVAGAL POLICE STATION, HASSAN AND S.C.NO.90/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324, 302, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard petitioners’ Counsel and High Court Government Pleader.
2. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively in Cr.No.7/2017 registered by Javagal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 302, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. According to the complaint, the incident took place on 05.03.2017 between 9.30 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. When the complainant, her husband and her two sisters went to their land, they saw accused No.1-Basavaraju doing some work there. When they all questioned him as to what he is doing at that time, accused No.1 assaulted the complainant’s husband on his head with sickle. Petitioner No.1-Dharmappa assaulted him with hammer on his head and petitioner No.2-Jenukallappa also assaulted him with club. As a result, the complainant’s husband sustained severe injuries and he was admitted to the Hospital. On 20.03.2017, the complainant’s husband breathed his last.
4. The petitioners’ Counsel argues that the complaint discloses assault by four persons and the Post Mortem Report discloses the presence of only two injuries on the head region and, therefore, there is no consistency between the complaint averments and the Post Mortem Report. He argues that existence of land dispute is not disputed and in this background false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out. He further argues that the entire investigation is completed and the charge-sheet has been filed.
5. The High Court Government Pleader opposes grant of bail.
6. On perusing the complaint, it can be made out that the entire incident appears to have taken place in the background of land dispute. In the complaint, it is clearly stated that four persons assaulted the deceased on the head, but the Post Mortem Report discloses presence of only two injuries. Be that as it may, since the entire investigation is completed, there is no impediment for granting bail. Hence, the following;
ORDER The Petition is allowed.
The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) each and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to the following conditions:
i) They shall appear before the trial Court regularly;
ii) They shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses nor tamper with the prosecution evidence.
Sd/- JUDGE mv