Mahantesh S/O Gangadhar Salagar vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 5717 Kant

                              1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 8 T H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
                           BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100306/2021

   BETWEEN:

   MAHANTESH S/O. GANGADHAR SALAGAR,
   AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER,
   R/O. VEERPUR ROAD, AGASAR ONI, HUBBALLI 580 009.
                                              ...APPELLANT
   (BY SRI.B.V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE)

   AND:
   1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
          THROUGH P.I. BENDIGERI P.S.,
          HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT BENCH, DHARWAD-580 011

   2.     RATNA, W/O. MANJUNATH ILAKAL
          SIDDARAMESWAR TEMPLE,
          AGASAR ONI, HUBBALLI,
          DIST: DHARWAD-580 009
                                             ....RESPONDENTS
   (BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1; R2-SERVED)

         THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
   14(A)(2) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
   (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 SEEKING TO
   RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN SPL. SC/ST NO.21/2021
   PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
   SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, DHARWAD IN
   BENDIGERI P.S. CRIME NO.46/2021, CHARGE SHEETED FOR
   THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 325, 302, 504, 506 OF IPC
   AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) OF
   SC/ST (POA) ACT.
                                 2




     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

The sole accused has filed this appeal

seeking to set aside the order dated

04.08.2021 passed by the II Additional District

and Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad, in

Spl.SC/ST No.21/2021, whereunder the bail

application of the appellant/accused sought in

Crime No.46/2021 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 325, 302, 504 and

506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for

brevity) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)

and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989, came to be rejected.

2. The case of the prosecution is that,

one Smt. Ratna, W/o.Manjunath Ilkal, has filed

a complaint stating that on 29.03.2021 at

about 4.00 pm, her husband went out from

home stating that he is going to play game in

the street. Thereafter, at about 5.00 pm, the

complainant went to call her husband, at that

time, she saw that the accused was quarreling

with her husband and when she enquired the

accused, he told that her husband should give

Rs.20/- to him but in stead of giving the

amount, he is abusing him and accused by

holding the shirt of the complainant's husband

and by abusing him in filthy language by

touching his caste, gave a blow by his fist on

the nose of the deceased Manjunath. At that

time, the complainant and the people gathered

rescued the complainant's husband. On the

next day, i.e., on 30.03.2021, he was admitted

to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi and he died on

04.04.2021. The appellant/accsued came to be

arrested on 03.04.2021. The police filed

charge sheet for the aforesaid offences and the

appellant filed bail application in Spl.SC/ST

Case No.21/2021 and the same came to be

rejected by the II Additional District and

Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad by order

dated 04.08.2021. The appellant/accused has

challenged the said order in the present

appeal.

3. Heard the arguments of learned

counsel appearing for the appellant/accused

and the learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1 - State.

Respondent No.2, in spite of service of notice,

has remained absent and unrepresented.

4. Learned counsel for appellant/

accused would contend that, there was no

intention on the part of the appellant/accused

to cause the death of deceased. The incident

might have taken place under sudden/grave

provocation. The trial has commenced and all

material witnesses have been examined and

therefore, there is no question of tampering

the witnesses. It is his further submission that

the complainant and the eyewitnesses have not

supported the case of the prosecution. As the

charge sheet is filed, the appellant is not

required for custodial interrogation. Without

considering all these aspects, learned Sessions

Judge has passed the impugned order rejecting

the bail application of the appellant, 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 appellant/accused has

assaulted on the nose of the deceased, which

is the vital part of the body and the said

assault has caused the death of the deceased.

CWs. 8 and 9 are the eyewitnesses to the

incident and they have stated specifically the

overt act of the appellant/accused. The

doctor, who conducted post-mortem

examination has opined that the death of the

deceased is due to respiratory failure

consequent upon the injury sustained to head

(Brain-internal) and it is possible that the

injuries mentioned in the postmortem report

sustained to the head is fatal. It is further

submitted that the charge sheet material

shows prima facie case against the appellant

for offences alleged against him. If the

appellant is granted bail, he will tamper the

prosecution witnesses and flee from justice.

Learned Sessions/Special Judge, considering all

these aspects has rightly rejected the bail

application of the appellant/accused and it

does not call for any interference of this Court.

With these he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. Having regard to the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the appellant

and the learned High Court Government

Pleader, this Court has gone through charge

sheet papers and certified copies of the

depositions furnished by the learned counsel

for the appellant.

7. The accusation leveled against the

appellant/accused is that, he quarreled with

the deceased and gave blow with fist on the

nose and caused bleeding injuries and the

deceased died after five days on 04.04.2021,

in the hospital. The doctor, who conducted the

post-mortem examination has opined that the

death is due to respiratory failure consequent

upon the injury sustained to head (Brain-

internal) and it is possible that the injuries

mentioned in the postmortem report sustained

to the head is fatal. As per the case of the

prosecution, the injury has been caused to the

nose of the deceased. Whether the assault

made by the appellant has caused the death of

the deceased is the matter of trial. As the

material witnesses have been examined, there

is no question of tampering the prosecution

witnesses. The learned Sessions/Special Judge

without considering all these aspects has

rejected the bail application of the

appellant/accused, which requires interference

by this Court. The main objection of the

prosecution is that, if the appellant/accused is

granted bail, he will threaten the prosecution

witnesses and flee from justice. The said

objection can be met with by imposing

stringent conditions.

8. 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 subject to

stringent conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass

the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The impugned order dated 04.08.2021

passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions

and Special Judge, Dharwad in Spl.SC/ST

No.21/2021 is set aside.

Consequently, the bail application filed by

the appellant/accused under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. stands allowed. The appellant-accused

is ordered to be released on bail in Spl.SC/ST

No.21/2021 (Crime No.46/2021 of Bendigeri

Police Station, Hubballi), subject to the

following conditions:

i) The appellant/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each, with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

      ii)     The     appellant/accused           shall     not
              indulge          in          tampering        the
              prosecution witnesses.

iii) The appellant/accused shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab