IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9458 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Sri. Kalimada Dinesh, S/o K.L.Nanjappa, Aged about 43 years, Westernmale Village, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu - 571 252. ...Petitioner (By Sri. N.Srinivas & Associates, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore - 560 001, by Madikeri Rural Police Station, Madikeri- 571 252. ...Respondent (By Smt. Namitha Mahesh, R.G., HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in CR.No.287/2018 of Madikeri Rural P.S. Kodagu District for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 201 of IPC and Sections 3, 27, 30 of Indian Arms Act and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on regular bail in Crime No.287/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 304 and 201 of IPC and Sections 3, 27 and 30 of the Indian Arms Act.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the complainant is that the deceased was the son of the complainant. On 18.10.2018, they came to the house of the accused after performing pooja at about 5.00 p.m. The accused came near his house with gun of his father-in-law and asked the deceased to accompany him to the Estate with his gun. Both of them went into the Estate with their guns. At about 6.00 p.m., the complainant heard a gunshot from the Estate and when he rushed there, he noticed the petitioner standing on the vacant land, beside the boundary of his estate, his son had fallen down after sustaining gunshot injury on his chest and he was unable to speak. When the complainant questioned the petitioner, he stated that when the deceased fell down along with his gun, at that time, the gun was fired accidentally and caused injury to the deceased. When the complainant verified the gun, there were no signs of recent firing and the cartridge inside the gun was intact. On suspicion, the complainant verified the gun of the petitioner accused and found the barrel was hot and smelling of gunshot and when he came back to home in grief, he heard another gunshot and his other relatives came there. They shifted the injured/deceased to the hospital and there, the Doctor declared him as dead. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that already charge sheet has been filed against the accused petitioner and he is not required for the purpose of interrogation or investigation. He further submitted that the petitioner and the deceased were relatives and they went inside the estate for the purpose of hunting along with their guns and under the impression that an animal has come, the accused petitioner has fired. There were no rivalries or disputes between them. He further submitted that in order to attract the provisions of Section 304 Of IPC, there must be an intention to cause the death. Even no documents have been produced by the prosecution to show that petitioner has fired deliberately or intentionally. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and to release the accused-petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the complaint discloses the fact that the fire has taken place from the gun belonging to the accused and not from the gun belonging to the deceased and when the witnesses and the complainant made enquiry, the accused petitioner told that along with the gun, the deceased fell down and it is accidental and later subsequent version has been changed and a new case has been made out that he went to estate for hunting and under the impression that an animal has come, he fired at the accused. There is ample material to show that the accused petitioner has committed the alleged offence. Even the FSL report and other documents which are produced by the prosecution clearly shows that it is the fire triggered from the gun of the accused and injury has been caused to the deceased. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the charge sheet material which has been made available during the course of argument by learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. On perusal of the charge sheet material it indicates that the said incident has taken place when the petitioner accused has shot the bullet under the impression that an animal has come and even the entire charge sheet material clearly goes to show that there were no rivalries between the accused and the deceased. The accused petitioner is not having any intention to cause the death of the deceased. The alleged incident might have taken place by accidental fire. Whether the fire has come out from the gun of the accused or the deceased is a matter which has to be considered and appreciated at the time of trial and not at this pre- mature stage. Taking into consideration the above facts, I feel that if at all, the accused petitioner is tobe punished that it is under Section 304 and nothing more.
In the light of the discussions held above, I feel by imposing some stringent conditions, if the accused petitioner is released on bail, then, it is going to meet the ends of justice. Hence, the petition is allowed and the petitioner accused is enlarged on bail in Crime No.287/2018 of Madikeri Rural Police Station, Kodagu District for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 201 of IPC and Sections 3, 27 and 30 of Indian Arms Act, subject to following conditions:
1. The Petitioner-accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly and he shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.
3. He shall appear before the trial Court regularly during the trial.
4. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
Sd/- JUDGE PN/-