Manjunath S/O Hanamappa ... vs The State
2021 Latest Caselaw 6422 Kant

                            1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 18 T H DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
                         BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100413/2021


   BETWEEN:

   MANJUNATH S/O. HANAMAPPA BAYAMMANAVAR,
   AGE 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
   R/O: DONI, TQ: MUNDARAGI,
   DIST: GADAG 582 103
                                      ...APPELLANT
   (BY SRI H.N. GULARADDI, ADV.)

   AND:

   1.     THE STATE
          THROUGH MUNDARAGI POLICE STATION
          REPRESENTED BY
          SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
          DHARWAD BENCH At DHARWAD

   2.   NAGAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA MADAR,
        AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
        R/O: DONI, TQ: MUNDARAGI,
        DIST: GADAG-582 103
                                       ....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
                            2




TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT SEEKING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF REJECTION OF REGULAR BAIL
APPLICATION DATED 29.11.2021 PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG
AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED NO.2 ON
REGULAR BAIL IN MUNDARAGI P.S. CRIME NO.151/2021
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323,
324, 326, 354, 447, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF
IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(v) OF SC
AND ST ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG.

     THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS   DAY,   THE   COURT  DELIVERED  THE
FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

Accused No.1 has filed this appeal challenging

the order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Gadag on the bail

application filed by the appellant in Mundargi Police

Station Crime No.151/2021 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 354, 447,

504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the

'SC & ST Act', for short).

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Nagappa

S/o. Ramappa Madar - respondent No.2 has filed a

complaint stating that he has got a land near

Mallasajjana Temple bearing its R.S. No.109

measuring 8 acres 17 guntas. The land of accused

No.1 - Manjunath is situated beside his land. It is

further stated that the petitioner uses to go to their

land through the land of complainant and also uses

Tractor to go to their land and the complainant was

objecting the same. Therefore there were frequent

quarrels between them. On 17.10.2021 complainant

along with his two daughters were doing agricultural

came in a Tractor with agriculture crop cutting

machine, for that complainant objected to go through

Tractor and told to go through Bullock Cart.

Therefore, accused Nos.1 and 2 abused him by taking

his caste and assaulted with stone. His daughter who

came to rescue him was also abused and assaulted by

accused No.2. Complainant admitted to KIMS Hubballi

and his daughter admitted to District Hospital Gadag.

The complaint came to be registered in Mundaragi

P.S. Crime No.151/2021 for the offences punishable

under Sections 323, 324, 326, 354, 447, 504, 506

read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r),

3(1)(2), 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act. The appellant-

accused No.2 came to be arrested on 18.10.2021 and

he was remanded to judicial custody. The appellant

filed bail application, which came to be rejected by the

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag by order

dated 29.11.2021 in Mundaragi P.S. Crime

No.151/2021. The appellant-accused No.1 has

challenged the said order in the present appeal.

3. In spite of service of notice, respondent

No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel

appearing for the appellant and the learned

HCGP for respondent No.1 - State.

5. It would be the contention of learned

counsel for the appellant that there is a civil

dispute between respondent No.2 and the

appellant, therefore, a false complaint came to

be lodged against accused Nos.1 and 2. It is

his submission that the injuries sustained by

respondent No.2 and his daughter are simple in

nature and they are discharged from the

hospital and that since major portion of

investigation is over, appellant is not required

for custodial interrogation. He would further

submit that there is a counter complaint filed

by accused No.1 in Crime No.155/2021

registered for the offence punishable under

Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC. Without

considering all these aspects learned Additional

District and Sessions/Special Judge, Gadag has

rejected the bail application of appellant, which

requires interference by this Court. Accused

No.2 has been granted bail by this Court in

Criminal Appeal No.100305/2021 and

therefore, the appellant/accused No.1 is also

entitled for grant of bail on the ground of

parity. With this he prayed for allowing the

appeal.

6. Per contra, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State

would submit that the offences alleged against

appellant-accused No.1 and another are serious

offences. Investigation is still in progress. In

the complaint specific overt-acts of appellant-

accused No.1 and another accused No.2 has

been stated. Respondent No.2 has sustained

grievous injuries and his daughter sustained

injuries on head. As investigation is still in

progress if the appellant-accused No.1 is

granted bail, he will hamper the investigation

and tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence,

he submits that considering all these aspects,

learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the

bail application of the appellant, which does

not call for any interference by this Court.

With this he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Having regard to the submission made by

the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1 - State, this Court has gone

through the FIR, Complaint and the impugned

order and other investigation papers furnished

by the learned High Court Government Pleader.

8. There is a civil dispute between

respondent No.2-complainant and father of

accused No.2 and it is now pending in a second

appeal before this Court. On perusal of the

complaint, it can be noted that accused Nos.1

and 2 abused respondent No.2 touching his

caste and accused No.1 assaulted respondent

No.2 with stone on his right eye and accused

Nos.1 and 2 lifted him and threw in a bush; his

left hand was fractured. When his daughter -

Annapoorna came to his rescue, accused No.2

assaulted her on head and caused injuries.

Respondent No.2 has sustained cut lacerated

wound over lateral margin of right eye and he

has sustained fracture of left midshaft ulna.

The injuries sustained by respondent No.2 are

grievous in nature. The daughter of

respondent No.2 has sustained injuries on her

head and it is simple in nature. Respondent

No.2 and his daughter have now been

discharged from the hospital and there is no

danger to their lives. The appellant is in

judicial custody since 19.10.2021, therefore he

is not required for custodial interrogation.

Without considering all these aspects, learned

Sessions/Special Judge has rejected the bail

application of the appellant-accused No.1,

which requires interference by this Court. The

appellant/accused No.1 is entitled for grant of

bail on the ground of parity since accused No.2

has been granted bail by this Court against

whom similar allegations are made in the

prosecution case. The main objection of the

prosecution is that if the appellant is granted

bail he will hamper investigation and tamper

prosecution witnesses and flee from justice.

The said objection can be met with by imposing

stringent conditions.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the case

and the submissions of the counsel, this Court

is of the view that there are valid grounds for

setting aside the impugned order and granting

bail to appellant-accused No.1, subject to

stringent conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass

the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The impugned

order dated 29.11.2021 passed in Mundaragi

P.S. Crime No.151/2021 by the Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Gadag is set

aside. Consequently, the bail application filed

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

stands allowed. The appellant-accused No.1

shall be released on bail in Mundaragi P.S.

Crime No.151/2021 pending on the file of the

learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Gadag, subject to the following conditions:

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

ii) The appellant/accused No.1 shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required.

iii) The appellant/accused No.1 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.

iv) The appellant/accused No.1 shall not obstruct or hamper the Police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet be collected by the Police.

      v)    The appellant/accused No.1 shall
            mark   his    presence           before   the

Police station concerned on every Sunday between 10:00a.m. and 02:00p.m. for a period of two months from the date of this order or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

Sd/-

JUDGE

kmv