Karnataka High Court
Dayananda S V vs State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2022
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10307/2022
BETWEEN:
DAYANANDA S.V
S/O VENKATAIAH GOWDA .S
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RETD., PRINCIPAL, PU COLLEGE
KOPPA, NOW DOING AGRICULTURE
R/O HONGIRANA, SASITHOTA
HAROGOLIGE VILLAGE, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 432
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.R. GOPALASWAMY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. BHARGAV .G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NAGARA POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438,
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.73/2022 OF NAGARA P.S., SHIVAMOGGA
2
DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304(A), 201, 34 OF IPC AND
SEC.3, 25, 27(2), 30 OF ARMS ACT ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL
JUDGE(JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C COURT, HOSANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA
DISTRICT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.4 has filed this petition under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of
his arrest in Cr.No.73/2022 of Nagara police station,
Hosanagara Circle, registered for the offence punishable
under Section 304-A and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and
Sections 3, 25 and 27(2) of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
Perused the records.
3. The complainant, Smt.Amitha has lodged a
complaint on 27.08.2022 alleging that they are two sons and
two daughters to her parents and the complainant and her
sister are married and her brothers Ambarish and Abhishek
are unmarried. Her brother Ambarish is residing in the village
looking after agriculture along his father and her younger
brother Abhishek is working in Bengaluru. It is alleged that
deceased Ambarish had possessed unlicensed country made
riffle and he used it for preventing the wild animals from
destroying the crops. Further on 27.08.2022 when the
complainant was at her husband's village her younger brother
Abhishek had come to her place and reported that his brother
Ambarish has gone to garden on 26.08.2022 at about 8:30
pm. along with country made riffle in order to prevent the wild
animals, but he did not return to home and when enquired
with Keerthi he informed that he also accompanied his brother
and later on he returned. Then when they searched, it is found
that dead body was found in Galigudda and it is noticed that
he suffered bullet injury and then she lodged a complaint in
this regard. During the course of investigation it is revealed
that the bullets in the body of the deceased were not the
bullets fired by country made riffle. When the accused Keerthi
was interrogated, he revealed that in fact they had gone there
and accused No.3-Nagaraj brought gun belonging to the
present petitioner/accused No.4 which was a licensed gun and
while they sitting on rock, accidentally he fell down and
accidentally the bullets from the riffle fired against him as a
result the deceased succumbed. It is further alleged that
thereafter in order to safeguard their interest they replaced
the licensed gun by country made riffle and based on this, the
investigating officer had also implicated the present petitioner
in this case as his gun is used in commission of the offence.
The gun was also produced by the petitioner before the
concerned police and same was seized. The petitioner has
approached the learned Sessions Judge and bail petition came
to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records it is evident that the gun shot found on the body of
the deceased i.e., accused No.1 were from the gun belonging
to the present petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.4.
There is no serious dispute that the said gun was subsequently
seized by the police along with license. The petitioner has also
produced license of the said gun, though the said gun was a
licensed gun but records reveal that he kept it carelessly which
has resulted in this incident as accused No.3 has taken the
said gun without taking any precaution. No doubt the
allegations of the prosecution discloses the gun was fired
accidentally and there is negligence on the part of the
petitioner also in not taking proper care to protect the gun
keeping the kartoos in a secured place.
5. Learned HCGP would place reliance on the Full
Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE
OF PUNJAB VS. BHURA SINGH AND OTHERS reported in
1985(1) SCC 37 and invited the attention of this Court to
paragraph-3 of the said judgment wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that it is for the concern holder of the licensed
gun to explain as to under what circumstance the incident has
occurred and he was not suppose to keep the gun which is
easily accessible. Further the kartoos are required to be placed
in a secured place known to him only. These precautions were
not taken by the present petitioner in this case. However, the
main offence alleged under Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms
Act may not be applicable on the present petitioner but, he is
answerable for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC as well
as Section 30 of the Arms Act.
6. Looking into these facts and circumstances, I do
not find any impediment for admitting the petitioner on bail.
However, certain apprehensions raised by the investigation
officer are required to be countered and they can be done by
imposing certain conditions. Hence, bail petition needs to be
allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed. The petitioners/Accused No.4
is directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest
in Crime No.73/2022 of Nagara Police Station, Hosanagar
Circle registered for the offences punishable under Section
304-A and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3,
25 and 27(2) and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. pending on the
file of Principal civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) JMFC Court, Hosanagar,
shimoga District, on executing personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for
the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer
or the concerned trial Court, subject to the following
conditions:
(i) Petitioner shall surrender himself before the
Investigating Officer within fifteen days from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order and in the event of surrender,
Investigating Officer/SHO shall release them
on bail as directed.
(ii) He shall not directly or indirectly tamper with
any of the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) He shall not indulge in any similar offences.
(iv) He shall make himself available to the
Investigating Officer for interrogation
whenever called for during course of
investigation.
(v) He shall mark his attendance before the
Investigating Officer/SHO between 9.00 a.m.
and 5.00 p.m. on every first Monday of the
month till the final report is submitted.
(vi) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
Court without prior permission.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RKA
