Sainath S/O Ladappa Salamantapi vs Shivakka W/O Mahadevappa ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5612 Kant

                                 1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 7 T H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
                             BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100331/2021

   BETWEEN:

   Sainath S/o. Ladappa Salamantapi
   Age: 38 years, Occ: Business
   R/o. Chichakhandi B.K., 587 313
   Mudhol, Dist. Bagalkot.
                                              ...APPELLANT
   (By Sri. K. S. Patil, Advocate)


   AND:

   1.     Shivakka, W/o. Mahadevappa Malammanavar
          Age: 45 years, Occ: Coolie
          R/o. Chikkalingadalli 581 110
          Tq. & Dist. Haveri.

   2.     The State of Karnataka
          Represented by P.S.I.
          Mudhol Police Station, Mudhol 587 313
          Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
          High Court of Karnataka
          Dharwad Bench, Dharwad 580 011.
                                             ....RESPONDENTS

   (By Sri.Vijayendra Bheemakkanavar, Advocate for R1;
        Sri. Ramesh B. Chigari, HCGP for R2)
                               2




      This criminal appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of
the Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 439 of Cr.P.C.,
seeking to set aside the order dated 11.11.2021 passed in
Mudhol PS Crime No.184/2021 by learned II Addl. District
and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot and grant regular bail to the
appellant in Mudhol PS Crime No.184/2021 pending on the
file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot,
registered for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302,
384, 504, 149 of IPC and Sections 3 (2)(v) of SC & ST
(POA) Act.

      This appeal is coming on for orders, this day, the
court delivered the following:

                       JUDGMENT

Accused No.3 has filed this appeal

challenging the order dated 11.11.2021 passed

by the II Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Bagalkot, wherein the bail application of

the appellant/accused No.3 sought in Mudhol

Police Station Crime No.184/2021, registered

for the offences punishable under Sections

143, 147, 148, 302, 384, 504, 149 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(2)(v)

of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, came to

be rejected.

2. The case of the prosecution is that,

respondent No.1 - mother of the deceased

Santosh @ Shantappa has filed a complaint

stating that her son deceased Santosh @

Shantappa was aged 28 years and was selling

Cooker and Mixer around Mudhol for the last

four years for his living and was staying at

Mudhol and he was unmarried. He used to visit

his native frequently. For his business, he had

purchased Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle by availing

loan in the name of accused No.1 and it was

known to the complainant. About 20 days

earlier, deceased visited the village for festival

and stayed for six days. During that time, he

had told that accused No.1 was quarreling with

him and he was not threatening to take

motorcycle as the installments were not

properly paid. Thereafter he went to Mudhol.

On 19.10.2021 at 3.00 am, the complainant

received a phone call while she was sleeping.

Somebody over phone informed to bring

Rs.40,000/- to bypass road and take Santosh,

who is in their custody, otherwise they would

finish him. But the complainant grew tense,

again phone started to ring and upon picking

up, it was again informed to bring Rs.40,000/-

to Hangal bypass and take her son. The

complainant got admitted to the Civil Hospital,

her son-in-law went to the bypass in his auto

rickshaw and saw Santosh, who was injured

and informed the same to the complainant over

phone. Immediately the complainant rushed

and saw Santosh, who was bleeding from his

penis. Persons accompanying him started to

demand Rs.40,000/-, as the surrounding

people started assembling, they fled in their

car. The complainant do not know the car

registration number, but she can identify the

persons accompanying her son deceased

Santosh. It is upon enquiry, Santosh informed

that on 18.10.2021 at 4.00 am, when he was

doing business at Mantur village, accused No.1

came there demanding him to properly pay

monthly installment of the motorbike, took him

to Masjid at Mudhol. The father of accused

Nos.1 and accused No.3, who were standing

there assaulted with stone over the stomach,

testicles causing injuries. Other accused

assaulted with hands. Santosh fell unconscious

and on regaining consciousness, he realized he

has been taken to Haveri. After hearing all the

incident, Santosh was admitted to the Civil

Hospital at Haveri. Thereafter, he was shifted

to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi for higher

treatment. On the way to Hubballi, he lost

consciousness. At about 5.45 pm on

20.10.2021 he died at KIMS Hospital, Hubballi.

The said complaint came to be registered

in Mudhol Police Station Crime No.184/2021 for

the aforesaid offences. The appellant/accused

No.3 came to be arrested on 22.10.2021 and

remanded to judicial custody. The

appellant/accused No.3 filed bail application

and the same came to be rejected by the II

Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot by

order dated 11.11.2021. The appellant has

challenged the said order in the present

appeal.

3. Heard the arguments of learned

counsel appearing for the appellant/accused

No.3, learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent No.2 - State and learned

counsel for respondent No.1 - complainant.

4. Learned counsel for

appellant/accused No.3 would contend that, on

perusal of the complaint, it can be ascertained

that the motive rests with accused Nos.1 and

2. Serious overt acts are alleged against

accused Nos. 1 and 2. The overt act alleged

against accused Nos. 3 to 5 are that they

assaulted the deceased with hands and legs.

Accused Nos. 3 to 5 are not armed with any

weapons. As the appellant is in judicial

custody since 22.10.2021, he is not required

for custodial interrogation. The

appellant/accused No.3 is ready to cooperate

with the police in investigation. Without

considering all these aspects, learned Sessions

Judge has rejected the bail application of the

appellant/accused No.3, which requires

interference by this Court. With these, he

prayed to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.2 would

contend that the deceased Santosh, before her

mother, had named accused Nos. 1 to 5 and

their overt acts, which is mentioned in the

complaint and on his subsequent death, the

said statement amounts to dying declaration.

Serious overt acts are alleged against the

appellant. As the investigation is still in

progress, the appellant/accused No.3 is not

entitled for grant of bail. If he is granted bail,

he will hamper the investigation and tamper

the prosecution witnesses. The learned

Sessions Judge, considering all these aspects

has rightly rejected the bail application of the

appellant/accused No.3.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1

would contend that the investigation is still in

progress and it is premature to ascertain the

truth and to consider the bail application of the

appellant/accused No.3. The cause of death is

yet to be ascertained. With this he prayed to

dismiss the appeal.

7. Having regard to the submission

made by the learned counsel for the appellant,

learned High Court Government Pleader and

learned counsel for respondent No.1, this Court

has gone through the FIR, complaint and the

order passed by the Sessions Court.

8. The accusation leveled against the

accused is that the deceased had purchased a

motorcycle by availing loan in the name of

accused No.1 and he did not pay loan

installments regularly and therefore, accused

No.1 secured the deceased Santosh and

thereafter accused Nos. 1 to 5 assaulted the

deceased and caused him severe injuries.

Subsequently, the deceased died after two

days on 20.10.2021 at 5.45 pm. The overt act

alleged against accused No.1 is that he

assaulted with stone on his stomach, private

part by kicking on his private part and made

him to fell down and his father accused No.2

assaulted him with club on his head and

private part and caused internal injuries.

Accused Nos. 3 to 5 assaulted the deceased

with hands and kicked with leg. On looking to

the said averments of the complaint, serious

and 2. Accused Nos. 3 to 5 are not armed with

any weapon. They only assaulted the deceased

with hands and kicked with leg. As no serious

overt act is alleged against appellant/accused

No.3, he is entitled for grant of bail. There are

no criminal antecedents of the

appellant/accused No.3. Appellant/accused

No.3 is in judicial custody since 22.10.2021

and therefore, he is not required for custodial

interrogation. Without considering all these

aspects, learned Sessions Judge has rejected

his bail application, which requires interference

by this Court. The main objection of the

prosecution is that, if the appellant/accused

No.3 is granted bail, he will hamper the

investigation and tamper the prosecution

witnesses. The said objection can be met with

by imposing stringent conditions.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the

case and submission of the counsel, this Court

is of the view that there are valid grounds for

setting aside the impugned order and granting

bail to the appellant/accused No.3 subject to

stringent conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass

the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The impugned order dated 11.11.2021

passed in Crl.Misc.No.541/2021 by the II Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, is set

aside.

Consequently, the bail application filed by

the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

stands allowed. The appellant-accused No.3

shall be released on bail in Crime No.184/2021

of Mudhol Police Station, subject to the

following conditions:

i) The appellant/accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

ii) The appellant/accused No.3 shall remain present before the Police station concerned on every Sunday of between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. and mark his presence for a period of two months or till filing of final report, whichever is earlier.

     iii)   The   appellant/accused        No.3      shall
            cooperate      with    the   investigation
            and   make      himself      available     for

interrogation, whenever required.

iv) The appellant/accused No.3 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to

any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.

v) The appellant/accused No.3 shall not obstruct or hamper the Police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet be collected by the Police.

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab