Iranna S/O Ashok Bajantri And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 2832 Kant

                         1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

                      BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

      CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200645/2021
                        C/W
      CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200646/2021



IN CRL.P.NO.200645/2021

BETWEEN:

1. SRI IRANNA S/O ASHOK BAJANTRI,
   AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
   OCC : DRIVER,
   R/O INDI ROAD BAMBAL AGASI,
   TQ & DIST : VIJAYAPUR
   NOW AT MASUTI, TQ : KOLHAR.
   (ACCUSED NO.26)

2. SRI SANGARSH
   S/O SANJAY SURYAVANSHI,
   AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
   OCC : DRIVER,
   R/O DEGINAL, TQ : INDI,
   DIST : VIJAYPUR.
   (ACCUSED NO.27)

3. SRI IRANNA S/O RAJU BADIGER,
   AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
   OCC : COOLIE,
   R/O BAMBAL AGASI,
                            2


  TQ & DIST : VIJAYAPUR.
  (ACCUSED NO.31)

4. SRI MAHESH S/O ARJUN SALUNKE,
   AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
   OCC : BUSINESS,
   R/O KUMBAR ONI,
   INDI ROAD, BAMBAL AGASI,
   TQ & DIST : VIJAYPUR.
   (ACCUSED NO.32)

5. SRI HUSAINBASHA
   S/O MAIBUBSAB SHABADI,
   AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
   OCC : AGRICULTURE,
   R/O KERUR, TQ : CHADACHAN
   DIST : VIJAYPUR.
   (ACCUSED NO.33)

6. SRI DILBARHUSSAIN
   S/O YAVARHUSSAIN SAIYAD,
   AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
   OCC: BUSINESS,
   R/O MIRJAPUR NIMOULI,
   POST BHARATKHAND,
   TQ : SOHAVAL, DIST : AYODHYA,
   STATE UTTAR PRADESH
   NOW AT PADAVAL NAGAR,
   THEHARGAV, PIMPARI, CHINCHAVAD,
   PUNE, STATE MAHARASHTRA.
   (ACCUSED NO.34)

                                     ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI ASHOK R.KALYANSHETTI AND
    SRI S.S.MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATES)
                          3


AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PSI, VIJAYPUR RURAL PS
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALABURAGI.
                                      ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI PRAKASH YELI, ADDL. SPP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION   439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN VIJAYAPUR RURAL POLICE
STATION     CRIME    NO.301/2020      PENDING      IN
C.C.NO.629/2021 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. JMFC,
VIJAYPUR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 109, 324, 307, 120B, 212, 326
AND 302 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS
3, 5 AND 7 READ WITH SECTIONS 25(1)(A)(1B)(A)(6)(7)
OF INDIAN ARMS (AMENDMENT) IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


IN CRL.P.NO.200646/2021

BETWEEN:

1. SRI RAVI S/O GOVIND UPPAR,
   AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
   OCC : BUSINESS,
   R/O BELLUBBI,
   TQ: BABALESHWAR
   DIST : VIJAYPUR.
   (ACCUSED NO.24)
                          4


2. SRI PRALHAD S/O GOVIND UPPAR,
   AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
   OCC : BUSINESS,
   R/O BELLUBBI,
   TQ: BABALESHWAR
   DIST : VIJAYPUR.
   (ACCUSED NO.25)

                                      ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI ASHOK R.KALYANSHETTI AND
    SRI S.S.MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATES)


AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PSI, VIJAYPUR RURAL PS
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALABURAGI.
                                      ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI PRAKASH YELI, ADDL. SPP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION   439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN VIJAYAPUR RURAL POLICE
STATION     CRIME    NO.301/2020      PENDING      IN
C.C.NO.629/2021 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. JMFC,
VIJAYPUR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 109, 324, 307, 120B, 212, 326
AND 302 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS
3, 5 AND 7 READ WITH SECTIONS 25(1)(A)(1B)(A)(6)(7)
OF INDIAN ARMS (AMENDMENT) IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                            5


    THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.07.2021, COMING
ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS' THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Both these petitions are filed under Section 439

of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C') for

enlarging the petitioners on regular bail in Crime

No.301/2020 of Vijaypur Rural Police Station, Vijaypur

District registered in C.C.No.629/2021 on the file of IV

Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vijaypur for

the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,

109, 120B, 212, 324, 326, 307, 302 read with

Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3, 5 and 7 read with

Section 25(1)(a)(1B)(a)(6) and (7) of the Arms

(Amendment) Act, 2019.

2. As both these petitions are arising out of

the same crime they are heard together and common

order is being passed.

3. The petitioners in Criminal Petition

No.200645/2021 are arrayed as accused Nos.26, 27,

31, 32, 33 and 34 while petitioners in Criminal Petition

No.200646/2021 are accused No.24 and 25.

4. The factual matrix leading to these cases

are that the complainant is the cousin brother of

CW.74-Mahadev Bhairgond and he used to accompany

him to drive his car whenever it is required. There was

a long standing enmity between the family of

Mahadev Bhairgond and the family of accused No.1 -

Mallikarjun Chadachan. During the year 2017, the

sons of accused No.1 were murdered and accused

Nos.1 and 2 were nurturing grudge against Mahadev

Bhairgond on the ground that he is the person

responsible for their murder. Hence, accused Nos.1

and 2 along with family members conspired with other

accused to commit the murder of Mahadev Bhairgond.

That on 02.11.2020, CW.74-Mahadev Bhairgond

along with his followers after completing the work at

Vijayapur was returning to his village in three different

cars. The CW.74 - Mahadev Bhairgond was travelling

in car bearing Reg.No.MH-13-CT-4689 along with the

deceased Laxman Dindore and in another car

deceased Baburao Kanchanalkar was travelling while

other witnesses were also travelling in other two cars.

According to the case of prosecution at 3.20 p.m on

the bridge near Kannal on NH-52 of Vijaypur-Solapur,

some unknown persons came in a Tipper bearing

No.MH-10-B-9851 from opposite direction and dashed

against the car of Mahadev Bhairgond and thereafter

the accused persons got down from the tipper and

some of the accused who were hiding in the adjacent

land and bushes, came near the car and started

pelting the stones and also fired with pistols. It is also

alleged that they also threw petrol bombs, which has

resulted in death of Baburao Kanchanalkar and

Laxman Dindore and Mahadev Bhairgond has

sustained grievous injuries. It is further alleged that

Hussainee Bhajantri, Ramesh Sharma and Jagaveer

Singh have also sustained injuries. In this regard the

complaint came to be lodged by the complainant and

on the basis of the complaint the Investigating Officer

has issued first information report. The present

petitioners were apprehended and the Investigating

Officer after concluding the investigation has

submitted the charge-sheet against the present

petitioners and other accused in C.C.No.629/2021 on

the file of IV Additional JMFC Court, Vijaypur. The

learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the

offences and in the meanwhile accused were also

remanded to judicial custody. They have filed petition

for enlarging them on bail before the learned Sessions

Judge, but their bail petition came to be rejected.

Hence, they claimed that they have approached this

court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners

would submit that there are no reasonable grounds

and prima facie material as against the present

petitioners and they are innocent of the alleged

offences. It is alleged that the complaint was lodged

against accused Nos.1 and 2 and other unknown

persons. He would further submit that there is no

direct evidence or material against present petitioners

so as to connect them with the alleged offences and

the materials collected by the Investigating Officer is

wholly insufficient to prima facie to prove the

complicity of the case against the present petitioners.

That the petitioners are permanent residents of

addresses given in the cause title, having deep roots

in the society and they undertake to abide by the

terms and conditions to be imposed by this court, if

they are released on bail. Hence, it is prayed for

admitting them on regular bail.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional State

Public Prosecutor has seriously objected the bail

petitions on the ground that there is sufficient material

available to show the involvement of the present

petitioners and further the present petitioners were

part of the conspiracy and they were assigned

different roles in commission of the offences which

were revealed during the course of investigation. He

would further submit that the Investigating Officer has

collected material evidence and there is prima facie

material evidence and considering the nature and

gravity of the offences, this is not a fit case wherein

the discretion can be exercised and hence he has

sought for rejection of the petitions.

7. Having heard the arguments and perusing

the records, it is to be noted here that the present

petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.24 to 27 and

31 to 34 in the charge sheet. The specific allegation is

that on 02.11.2020 when CW.74- Mahadev Bhairgond

with his followers was returning to village from

Vijaypur by a cars, by using a tipper the car of

Mahadev Bhairgond was dashed and then they were

attacked by pelting stones, firing pistols and by

throwing petrol bombs. In the alleged incident two

persons Baburao Kanchanalkar and Laxman Dindore

died and Mahadev Bhairgond and other witnesses

have suffered gun shots. It is also evident from the

record that there is enmity between accused No.1 and

CW.74 - Mahadev Bhairgond.

8. The allegation of the prosecution clearly

establish that the present petitioner No.1 i.e., accused

No.26 though not present on the spot he is alleged to

have given shelter to accused No.9 and 15 having

knowledge that they committed the offences and they

were housed in his house at Masuthi village by

providing them clothes and Rs.10,000/- for their

escape.

9. Further allegation against the present

petitioner No.2 i.e., accused No.27 and petitioner No.5

accused No.33 is that they were watching the

movements of Mahadev Bhairgond and used to give

information to accused No.3.

10. Further against the petitioners Nos.3 and 4

i.e., accused No.31 and 32 the specific allegation is

that they have committed theft of tipper from Bilagi as

per the directions of accused No.3 for the purpose of

attacking CW.74-Mahadev Bhairgond in order to cause

his death. Further the specific allegation is that they

have changed the number plate and colour of the

tipper used for the commission of the offence and

they were part of the conspiracy.

11. It is also alleged that they have also

involved in preparing Talwar as per direction of

accused No.3 and supplied them but no allegations

have been made regarding assault by talwar in the

instant case.

12. The petitioner No.6 i.e., accused No.34 is

alleged to be a permanent resident in the house of

accused No.1 and 2 since several years and he is

actively participated in the conspiracy. It is also

alleged that he having knowledge of commission of

offence gave shelter to accused No.3, 4 and 10 and he

is also involved in serious offences of punishable

under Sections 302 and 395 in Crime No.301/2014 of

Gandhi Chowk Police Station and Crime Nos.172, 175,

and 181 of 2017 of Chachadan Police Station.

13. Further it is alleged that the petitioner No.1

and 2 in Criminal Petition No.200646/2020 have gave

shelter in their Dabha to accused No.16 and 17 having

knowledge that they have committed the offences and

assisted them by providing SIM cards and mobiles so

as to reach Bengaluru. Hence, the allegations of the

prosecution clearly establish that the specific overt act

is alleged as against each petitioners. The matter is

serious as it is involved causing death of two persons.

14. Looking to these facts and circumstances

and considering the gravity of the offences and when

there is prima facie material as against the present

petitioners, this is not a fit case wherein the discretion

can be exercised in favour of the petitioners especially

when there is serious rivalry between the parties.

15. The learned Additional State Public

Prosecutor in this context has also placed reliance on

a decision reported in (2018) 10 Supreme Court

Cases 516 [State of Orissa vs. Mahimananda

Mishra] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

issued guidelines for consideration of application

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

16. In the instant case there is prima facie

sufficient evidence is available against the present

petitioners and looking to these facts and

circumstances this is not a fit case wherein the

discretion can be exercised in favour of the present

petitioners. Hence, the petitions are not at all

maintainable and need to be rejected. The other

grounds raised by the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners can be only considered during the

course of trial and hence the petitions need to be

dismissed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the

following :

ORDER

Petitions are dismissed.

Original order shall be placed in Criminal Petition

No.200645/2021 and copy there off shall be placed in

Criminal Petition No.200646/2021.

Sd/-

JUDGE sn