Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj @ Basayya @ Huliya @ ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 June, 2022
Bench: M G Uma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200640/2022
Between:
1. Basavaraj @ Basayya
@ Huliya @ Saibanna
S/o Jagannath @ Jagappa
Bukkatagi Hosamani,
Age: 24 years, Occ: Mechanic,
R/o Savatkhed Village,
Tq: Chittapur, Dist: Kalaburagi.
2. Raju @ Rajshekar
S/o Revansiddappa Madagi,
Age: 24 years, Occ: Driver,
R/o Savathkhed Village,
Tq: Chittapur, Dist: Kalaburagi.
... Petitioners
(By Sri Rajesh Doddamani, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
Kalagi Police Station,
Now Represented by the
Additional State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench-585102.
... Respondent
(By Sri Gururaj V.Hasilkar, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to allow the petition and release the
petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 (as per Charge Sheet) on
bail in connection with Crime No.114/2017 of Kalagi Police
Station, registered for the offence under Section 395 r/w
Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, now pending on the file
of IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi
sitting at Sedam in SC No.80/2020.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this
Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in
Crime No.114/2017 of Kalagi Police Station, Kalaburagi
District, pending in S.C.No.80/2020 on the file of learned
IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi,
sitting at Sedam, for the offence punishable under Section
395 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC') on the basis of the first information lodged by
informant-Siddaling.
2. Heard Sri Rajesh Doddamani, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned
High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2.
They are innocent and have not committed any offences as
alleged. These petitioners were apprehended by Madbool
Police in Crime No.108/2017 and thereafter, falsely
implicated in this case and secured their presence under
body warrant. These petitioners were tried in Special Case
(SC/ST) No.69/2017 on the file of learned II-Additional
Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi. They were acquitted vide
judgment dated 03.02.2022. The petitioners who are in
judicial custody since 28.08.2017 are not required to be
detained in custody. General and omnibus allegations are
made against the petitioners and accused No.3. Accused
No.3 is already enlarged on bail. On parity, petitioners are
also entitled to be enlarged on bail. The petitioners are
the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the
cause title to the petition and are ready and willing to
abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by
this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious
allegations are made against the petitioners for having
committed the offences. CW.1 is the injured witness.
CWs.2 and 3 are the eyewitnesses. These petitioners
along with other accused waylaid the motorcycle in which
CWs.1 to 3 were proceeding and by gagging their mouth
and dragging them to a remote place, assaulted them with
club and snatched the cash, gold chain and also
motorcycle. They were criminally intimidated to take away
their life. The vehicle and cash of Rs.10,000/- were
recovered at the instance of accused No.1. The voluntary
statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 were also recorded.
Statements of CWs.1 to 3 disclose that they have identified
the accused. The petitioners are habitual offenders.
Looking to the seriousness of the offences, the petitioners
are not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for
dismissal of the petition.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would
arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners are
entitled for grant of bail under Section
439 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
6. Serious allegations are made against the
petitioners for having committed the offences who are
arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2. It is stated that they
were initially apprehended on 28.08.2017 in Crime
No.108/2017 of Madbool Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 364(A), 143, 147, 148, 341,
504, 324, 109, 323, 506, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC and
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and
they were tried in Special Case (SC/ST) No.69/2017. The
judgment passed by the Trial Court in the said case is
produced before the Court. The Trial Court observed that
there are material contradictions and omissions in the case
and therefore, the accused are entitled for the benefit of
doubt and accordingly, the accused are acquitted.
7. In the present case, CW.1-injured witness and
CWs.2 and 3 are the eyewitnesses. The victims have given
their statements and have identified these petitioners. It
is stated that the incriminating materials were recovered at
the instance of accused No.1. Even though it is stated that
accused No.3 is already enlarged on bail, copy of the order
is not produced before the Court. Looking to the
seriousness of the offences and also criminal antecedents
of the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the petitioners
are not entitled for bail.
8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB*
