Shri Nagaraj S/O Arjun Araballi vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 12533 Kant

                              -1-




                                      CRL.A No. 100400 of 2022




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                           BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100400 OF 2022 (U/S 14 A(2) of SC
                         and ST ACT-)
BETWEEN:

1.    SHRI NAGARAJ S/O ARJUN ARABALLI
      AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE
      R/O. KARADIGUDDI,
      TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI

2.    SHRI LAKKAPPA S/O BASAPPA HALLI
      AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
      R/O. MARIHAL
      TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI

3.    SHRI VISHAL S/O MARUTI BAGADI
      AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
      R/O. MARIHAL
      TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI

4.    SHRI DODDAPPA S/O GANGAPPA ARABALLI
      AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
      R/O. KARDIGUDDI
      TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI

5.    SHRI BASAVANTH S/O BASAVENAPPA KARAVINKOPPA
      AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
      R/O. KARDIGUDDI
      TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI-



                                                  ...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. NAGARATHNA S. PATTAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:
                              -2-




                                    CRL.A No. 100400 of 2022

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     THROUGH THE P S I MARIHAL
     R/B STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT BENCH
     DHARWAD

2.   SHRI HALASIDDAPPA S/O CHENNAPPA ANGADI
     AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE,
     R/O. SUNAKOPPI, TQ. BAILHONGAL
     DIST. BELAGAVI-591102

3.   SHRI RAMESH S/O BASAVARAJ CHANDARGI
     AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE,
     R/O. KHANAGAVI, TQ. GOKAK
     DIST. BELAGAVI-591344



                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICIE TO R2 AND R3 SERVED)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING     TO    BY     ALLOWING       THIS   PETITION   THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.4 TO 8 MAY BE RELEASED ON BAIL, IN
MARIHAL P.S. CRIME NO.48/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/S 143, 147, 148, 302, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC
AND SECTION     3(1)(r), 3(1),(S), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST POA ACT,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BELAGAVI.
     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                        JUDGMENT

challenging the order dated 18.08.2022 passed in Criminal

Misc. No.1087/2022, whereunder the bail petition filed by

these appellants in Crime NO.48/2022 of Marihal Police

Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections

CRL.A No. 100400 of 2022

143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302, 427, 504, 506 read with

Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and

3(2)(va) of SC/ST POA Act, 1989, came to be rejected.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the appellants and the learned HCGP for the respondent-

State.

3. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 who were physically

present before the Court on the previous date of hearing,

prayed not to grant bail to the appellants.

4. The case of the prosecution is that, one Sri.

Halasiddappa (respondent No.2) has filed complaint stating

that, there was a case against the brother of the complainant

by name Mudakappa (deceased) and his friends (i) Ramesh,

(ii) Prashant and (iii) Basavaraj and the date of the enquiry

was on 31.03.2022 in the Belagavi Court. Therefore, the

brother of the complainant i.e. deceased Mudakappa,

Ramesh, Prashant, Basavaraj, Sadashiv, Shivu, Kallappa and

Bandenawaz had been to Belagavi in Bolero Jeep bearing its

registration No.KA-28/B-1273 to attend the Court. On

CRL.A No. 100400 of 2022

31.03.2022, at about 5.45 p.m., C.W.12 Sadashiv informed

the complainant over the phone that when he himself and

one Prashant C.W.11 were proceeding from Belagavi towards

Nesargi, 7 to 8 persons were standing near Mahalaxmi

Dhaba. On seeing them, they stopped the vehicle. One

Doddappa the petitioner/accused No.7 amongst the persons

standing there, broken the left side mirror of Bolero Jeep and

when C.W.11 Sadashiv and others objected the same, all the

persons standing there broken the glasses of the Bolero

Jeep. Accused No.1 assaulted the deceased Mudakappa with

dagger (talwar) and caused injury. When he fell down,

accused No.2 Sanju assaulted the deceased Mudakappa with

bamboo on his head and other parts of the body. Accused

No.3 Sunil assaulted Mudakappa with knife on his chest.

Accused No.4 Nagaraj and accused No.5 Lakkappa assaulted

with hands. Accused No.6 Vishal assaulted him with sickle.

Accused No.7 Doddappa assaulted Ramesh with stone.

Thereafter, accused No.8 Basavant assaulted the

complainant and Kallappa and they abused Kallappa by

referring to his caste. He also informed that, Mudakappa and

Ramesh have been shifted to Hospital, but Mudakappa died

CRL.A No. 100400 of 2022

before reaching the Hospital. The said complaint came to be

registered in Crime No.48/2022 for the offences punishable

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 324, 504 read with

Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the

SC/ST POA Act, 1989. The police after the investigation filed

charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302,

427, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST POA Act, 1989. The

accused No.4 came to be arrested on 05.04.2022 and

accused Nos.5, 7 & 8 were on 01.04.2022 and accused No.6

has been arrested on 07.04.2022 and they are in judicial

custody. The appellants filed Criminal Misc. No.1087/2022

seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by the III

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi by order

dated 18.08.2022. The appellants have challenged the said

order in the instant appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend

that, the accused No.1 has also lodged a complaint before

the Marihal police station and it came to be registered in

CRL.A No. 100400 of 2022

Crime No.49/2022 for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 324, 504 read with Section

3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST POA Act, 1989. It is her further

submission that, the alleged assault by the appellants is in

their self defence and there was no intention by the

appellants to cause injury/death of the deceased. It is her

further submission that, the statement of the witnesses have

been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and also under

Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and there are material contractions in

those statements. There is no recovery from the appellants.

The spot mahazar has been conducted in the counter case on

01.04.2022 between 12.30 noon to 1.30 .m. and Talwar,

Sickle has been seized and in the same spot another

mahazar has been conducted in the present case on the

same day on 01.04.2022 between 4.30 p.m. to 5.45 p.m.,

wherein 11 articles including the weapons have been

recovered. The very fact shows that the recovery is false. It

is her further submission that, it is fight between two groups

and who is the aggressor is the matter of the trial. The

charge-sheet is filed, the appellants are not required for

custodial interrogation. Without considering all these

CRL.A No. 100400 of 2022

aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the

impugned order which requires interference by this Court.

With this she prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to the

appellants.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that,

there are specific overt acts against these appellants i.e.

accused Nos.4 to 8 in the charge-sheet, in the statement of

witnesses recorded by the police and also recorded under

Section 164 of Cr.P.C.. Under the spot mahazar there is

recovery of 11 articles including weapons used by the

accused persons to assault the deceased and the injured.

There is a recovery of knife from accused No.4. The Bolero

Jeep has been seized under the mahazar. The Doctor who

conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of

the deceased noted 14 injuries over the body of the

deceased and opined that the death is due to shock and

hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained by

sharp force impact. The wound certificate of C.W.10 shows

that he has sustained two injuries which are cut lacerated

wounds which can be caused by the hard and blunt object.

CRL.A No. 100400 of 2022

C.W.10 to C.W.18 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. The

charge-sheet material shows prima-facie case against the

appellants for the offences alleged against them. Considering

all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly

passed the impugned order which does not call for any

interference by this Court.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellants and the learned HCGP for the respondent No.1,

this Court has gone through the charge-sheet records and

the impugned order, passed by the Sessions Court.

8. The case of the prosecution as per the charge-

sheet is that, Mudakappa and other witnesses were traveling

in Bolero Jeep bearing KA-28/B-1273 and they stopped

seeing accused No.4 who is acquainted with him and he got

down and when he was talking with accused No.4, at that

time accused No.1 teased the deceased and the deceased

told him not to tease him and at that time, accused No.7 has

broken the side mirror of the Bolero Jeep and C.W.10 and

C.W.14 abused the accused No.7 and asked him why he has

broken the mirror and in that regard, the quarrel started

CRL.A No. 100400 of 2022

between them and the accused persons formed an unlawful

assembly with an intention to cause death of the deceased,

accused No.1 took talwar, accused No.3 took button knife,

accused No.4 took knife, accused No.6 took sickle, accused

No.2 took bamboo stick fallen there, accused Nos.7 & 8 took

stones. Accused No.2 assaulted with bamboo stick on the

head of the deceased Mudakappa and accused No.1

assaulted the deceased Mudakappa with talwar on his nose,

accused Nos.3 and 4 assaulted the deceased with knife which

they were holding on his chest and stomach, accused No.7

assaulted with stone on the head of the deceased, accused

No.6 assaulted with sickle on chin of the deceased, accused

No.3 assaulted with knife on the hand of C.W.10 and

accused No.8 assaulted with stone on the head of C.W.10

and accused No.5, 9 to 13 together assaulted C.W.10 and

deceased Mudakappa with hands and kicked them and

accused No.8 abused C.W.11 to C.W.13 touching their caste.

The deceased Mudakappa died on the way to the Hospital.

Out of them, C.W.10 is the injured who has sustained two

injuries. The 164 Statement of C.W.10, C.W.11 and C.W.14

has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. There is a

- 10 -

CRL.A No. 100400 of 2022

recovery of 11 articles from the spot including the weapons

under mahazar. There is a recovery of knife at the instance

of the accused No.4 Nagaraj. There is a recovery of Bolero

Jeep. The Doctor who conducted postmortem examination

over the dead body of the deceased, noted 14 injuries and

opined that his death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a

result of multiple injuries sustained by sharp force impact.

Considering all these aspects, the leaned Sessions Court has

rightly rejected the bail petition of the appellants by the

impugned order. Merely because there are some

contradictions in the statements of the eyewitnesses

recorded by the police and recorded under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C. is not a ground for grant of bail. The appellants have

not made out any grounds for interfering with the impugned

order and for grant of bail. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SVH