IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 1609/2019 BETWEEN SRI RAMASHETTY @ RAMANNA S/O SRI PUTTAPPA AGED 65 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O SINDHIGERE VILLAGE LOKYA HOBLI CHIKAMAGALUR TALUK-577 101 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. M. ASHOKA, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RURAL POLICE CHIKAMAGALUR REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 …. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.293/2018 (S.C.NO.153/2018) OF CHICKAMAGALURU RURAL P.S., CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss. 307 & 302 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned HCGP for the Respondent –State. Perused the records.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that, the accused-Ramesh Shetty and the deceased-Rangaswami are no other than the co-brothers. The deceased- Rangaswamy had been working as a Watcher in the Forest Department for the last 20 years. The deceased had stood as surety for one Rangaswami, who is the son of the accused for availing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the bank for the construction of house. When the bank authorities informed the deceased about the non- payment of the loan installments to the bank, Rangaswamy, (deceased) on 02.08.2018 at about 6.30 p.m., went to the house of the accused-Ramashetty to enquire the same, but at that time the accused was not present in the house and the deceased asked the wife of the accused about the non-payment of the loan. In that context, on the same day at about 7.15 p.m., the accused-Ramashetty went to Rangaswami’s house along with a deadly weapon (kathi) and asked the deceased as to why he came to his house and enquired with his wife regarding the loan and suddenly the accused assaulted the deceased by kathi on his upper part of the chest and on his right hand, and also he assaulted his daughter (Bhuvana) below her waist. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him and the child-Bhuvana had also sustained some simple injuries. The wife and daughter of the deceased are the eyewitnesses to the incident, who were actually present at the spot and witnessed the incident. The post-mortem report also establishes that the death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury to major blood vessels. Further the fact remains that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him. Therefore, considering the nature of the allegations and the materials collected by the police, though the accused is in custody for more than 1½ years, that itself is not sufficient to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail. However, a direction can be issued to the trial Court to expedite the trial in SC No.153/2018 and dispose of the same as early as possible.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the case in SC No.153/2018 as expeditiously as possible.
KGR* Sd/- JUDGE