Karnataka High Court
Gurunagouda Alias ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2022
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100476 OF 2022
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100485 OF 2022
IN CRL. A. NO.100476/2022:
BETWEEN:
GURUNAGOUDA @ GURUMURTHYGOUDA
S/O. SOMASHEKHARAGOUDA POLICEPATIL
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOUSE NO. 38, WARD NO.1,
BEHIND BSNL OFFICE, HULIYDER,
TQ. KANAKAGIRI, DIST.KOPPAL,
PIN-583283.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T. R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KANAKAGIRI POLICE,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH DHARWAD,
PIN - 580011.
2. KHADARABASHA S/O. MAMAMADSABA MALIGADDI
AGED 30 YEARS, OCC. MASON,
-2-
CRL.A. No. 100476 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No.100485 of 2022
R/O. HULIYDER,
TQ. KANAKAGIRI, DIST. KOPPAL 583283.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1
R2 - SERVED)
IN CRL. A. NO.100485/2022:
BETWEEN:
SHIVASHANKRAPPA S/O. SHESHAPPA
CHANNADASAR
AGED: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. WARD NO. 3 HULIYDER,
TQ. KANAKAGIRI, DIST. KOPPAL,
PIN-583283.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T. R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KANAKAGIRI POLICE,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSDCUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH DHARWAD,
PIN-580011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1
R2 - SERVED)
-3-
CRL.A. No. 100476 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No.100485 of 2022
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC
AND ST (POA) ACT, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 22.09.2022 AND ALLOW THE APPEALS, IN FIR SC/ST
NO.535/2022 (ARISING OUT OF KANAKAGIRI PS CRIME
NO.84/2022) PENDING ON THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT KOPPAL AND PLEASE RELEASED THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.29 AND 31 ON BAIL, THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307,
302, 504, 506, R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND U/S 3(2)(v) OF
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION
OF ATROCITIES ACT) AMENDMENT BILL-2015, IN THE ABOVE
CASES.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, TH IS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Criminal Appeal No.100476/2022 is filed by
accused No.29 and Criminal Appeal
No.100485/2022 is filed by accused No.31. In
both the appeals the appellants have challenged
the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, rejecting their
CRL.A. No. 100476 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No.100485 of 2022
bail applications sought in Crime No.84/2022 of
Kanakagiri Police Station registered for the
offences punishable Sections 143, 147, 148, 323,
324, 307, 302, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of
the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as
'IPC', for brevity) and under Sections 3(2)(v) of
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as 'SC & ST (POA) Act', for brevity).
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants
and learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of
notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and
unrepresented.
4. The case of the prosecution is that, on
11.08.2022 one Khadarabasha S/o. Mamamadsaba
Maligaddi resident of Huliyder, Taluk Kanakagiri,
CRL.A. No. 100476 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No.100485 of 2022
District Koppal has filed the complaint stating that
on 11.08.2022 at about 9.00 a.m., accused
persons assaulted the complainant's brother
Pashavali near Hussainabasah Nadukal Darga with
rod, stick and stones and when the complainant
and his friend Sanna Hanumantha came to rescue
his brother, accused persons murdered his brother
by assaulting with rod, stick and stones and also
abused Sanna Hanumantha touching his caste and
named 28 persons who have committed the said
act. The said complaint came to be registered
against accused Nos.1 to 28 in Crime No.84/2022
of Kanakagiri Police Station for the aforesaid
offences. The appellants/accused Nos.29 and 31
came to be arrested on 12.08.2022 and they are in
judicial custody. The appellants/accused Nos.29
and 31 have filed bail applications and the same
came to be rejected by the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Koppal by order dated 22.09.2022.
CRL.A. No. 100476 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No.100485 of 2022
The said order has been challenged in the instant
appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants would
contend that the name of these appellants are not
mentioned in the complaint and FIR. As per
remand application there is only accusation that
these appellants instigated other accused to
commit offence. It is his further submission that
appellant/accused No.29 has attended the Civil
Judge and JMFC Court, Gangavathi in C.C.
No.203/2018 and he was not present on the spot
at the time of alleged incident. It is his further
submission that the wife of appellant/accused
No.29 is pregnant and her due date of delivery is
06.11.2022 and the marriage of this
appellant/accused No.29 is love marriage and
therefore the presence of the appellant/accused
No.29 is required to take care of his wife. It is his
CRL.A. No. 100476 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No.100485 of 2022
further submission that without considering all
these aspects, learned Sessions Judge has passed
the impugned order, which requires interference by
this Court. With this, he prayed to allow the
appeals and to grant bail to the appellants/accused
Nos.29 and 31.
6. Per contra, learned High Court
Government Pleader would contend that the
investigation is in progress. The Investigating
Officer has collected CCTV footage wherein, the
presence of persons involved in the alleged offence
is recoded. It is his further submission that there
is a clash between two groups and there is a
murder of one person each in each group, there is
disturbance in the village and damage to the
property of the village and the property of
individual. If the appellants are granted bail there
are chances of again disturbance in the village.
CRL.A. No. 100476 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No.100485 of 2022
Considering all these aspects, learned Sessions
Judge has passed the impugned order, which does
not required any interference by this Court. With
this, he prayed to dismiss the appeals.
7. Having regard to the submissions made
by learned counsel for the appellants and learned
High Court Government Pleader, this Court has
gone through the complaint, FIR, remand
applications, the impugned order and also the
investigation papers made available by learned
High Court Government Pleader.
8. The learned Sessions Judge referring to
the objections filed by the prosecution has noted
that in the year 2018 one Jagadish had damaged
the Valmiki statue near main road of Gangavathi-
Tavaragera and there was discussion to install
Valmiki statue and they wanted to install near
CRL.A. No. 100476 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No.100485 of 2022
panchayath office prior to Moharam festival. One
Sanna Hanumantha had objected for the same by
saying that, it is a busy area and it is necessary to
install the statue of Lord Budda, Basava and
Ambedkar and because of that, the officials have
stopped the installation of the statue. Because of
this incident there is ill will between the
community in the village. 10-12 days prior to the
Moharam festival one Parashuram Talavar of
Valmiki community was loving one Shamidabi, who
is Muslim girl and brought to his home and
thereafter, there was panchayath and the girl and
Parashuram Talavar, who are handed over to their
families. However, that girl came with Parashuram
Talavar and there are 2-3 such in incident occurred
in the village and it was also disturbance in the
village. Because of that incident, there was
quarrel between two groups and they have
murdered one Yankappa in that incident and
- 10 -
CRL.A. No. 100476 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No.100485 of 2022
assaulted the relatives of the deceased. Learned
Sessions Judge has perused the CCTV footage and
observed that both groups were enraged and they
were holding stones and there are CCTV footage
that Yankappa Talavar and Pashavali were taken.
Learned Sessions Judge has also observed that
CCTV footage shows the involvement of accused
Nos.1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 17, 20, 22, 27, 28, 29, 31,
32, 33, 34, 37 and 38. Learned Sessions Judge
has also observed in the impugned order that the
place in which the incident occurred and damage
caused in the village shows that there is a clash
between two groups and further observed that
there is murder of each person in each group.
There is not only damage to the public property
but also damage to the private property. The Trial
Court has also observed that if the
appellants/accused Nos.29 and 31 are released on
bail, they may cause further disturbance in the
- 11 -
CRL.A. No. 100476 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No.100485 of 2022
village. The Court has also observed that for the
safety of the society it is just and necessary to
keep the accused in jail, as the village is now
coming into control and there is a heat of incident
in the village. The presence of these
appellants/accused Nos.29 and 31 is revealed from
the investigation papers. What is their exact role,
is a matter of investigation and final report.
Merely because the appellant/accused No.29
attended a criminal case in the Court at
Gangavathi situated at the distance of 40 k.m.
from the place of incident, at this stage it cannot
be said that on the date of incident he was not
present on the spot. Merely because the wife of
appellant/accused No.29 is pregnant and her due
date of delivery is 06.11.2022 as per medical
records, is not a ground for grant of bail at this
stage when the investigation is in progress.
Considering all the above aspects, learned
- 12 -
CRL.A. No. 100476 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No.100485 of 2022
Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail
applications of the appellants/accused Nos.29 and
31 by the impugned order dated 22.09.2022.
There are no grounds for setting aside the
impugned order and granting bail to the
appellants/accused Nos.29 and 31. Hence, both
the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
