Karnataka High Court
Mallappa S/O. Shivappa Huddar vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 September, 2022
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100360 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MALL APPA S/O. SHIVAPPA HUDDAR,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHIROL , TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI J.BASAVAR AJ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(THROUGH MUDHOL P.S.)
R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHAR WAD-580011.
2. YALLAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA TALAGERI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHIROL, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRASHANTH V.MOGALI., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14-A(2) S.C/S.T.ACT AND UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1
ON BAIL IN SPL.CASE NO.3/2020 (CRIME NO.160/2019
OF MUDHOL PS) PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302,
120(B), 342 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND
UNDER SECTION 3(2)(v-a) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT
1989.
-2-
CRL.A No. 100360 of 2022
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDER S
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by appellant-accused No.1
challenging the order dated 17.03.2022 passed in
Spl.C.No.3/2020 by learned II Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, (hereinafter referred to
as 'Sessions/Special Judge', for short) on the bail
application of this appellant-accused No.1 and
accused Nos.14 and 15 sought in Crime
No.160/2019 of Mudhol Police Station registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 302,
120(B), 342 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.', for brevity) and
under Sections 3(2)(v-a) of The Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC & ST
(P.O.A.) Act' for brevity) which came to be
rejected.
CRL.A No. 100360 of 2022
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-
accused No.1, learned counsel for respondent No.2
and learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, one
Yallappa S/o Bharamappa Talageri has filed
complaint on 15.10.2019 stating that on
08.05.2019 the upper community in the village
have trespassed in his and his relatives houses and
ransacked their houses. In respect of the same two
complaints came to be filed in Crime No.79/2019
and Crime No.80/2019 before Mudhol Police
Station. Because of the same, the said persons
have grouse against the complainant and his
relatives. It is further stated that on 15.10.2019 at
about 4:30 p.m, when the complainant along with
Mahantesh, Durgappa, Mahesh and Laxman were in
Mudhol Police Station, he said to have received a
phone call from one Dastagirsab(CW.29), who
CRL.A No. 100360 of 2022
informed the complainant stating that his brother
Vittal and uncle Maleppa have been murdered near
the land of one Shankara Kadappa Maranoor
situated on Shirol-Kallolli road, the complainant
and others rushed to the spot and found their dead
bodies lying on the road in a pool of blood. The
complainant enquired with Renuka (CW.16) who
claim to be an eye witness to the alleged incident,
she informed him that while she was returning
from Karate coaching class at about 3:20 p.m,
near Ashraya plot cross, she said to have
witnessed 13 persons assaulting the deceased
persons with iron rod, talwar and axe and
thereafter, the said persons ran away from the
spot on the motorcycle and car. The said complaint
came to be registered in Crime No.160/2019 of
Mudhol Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 120B read with
Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 (2) (v-a) of SC
CRL.A No. 100360 of 2022
& ST (P.O.A.) Act. After investigation, charge-
sheet has been filed against accused No.1 and two
others, who are arrayed as accused Nos.14 and 15.
The charge-sheet has not been filed against
accused Nos.2 to 13. The case of the prosecution
as stated in the charge-sheet is that the
complainant along with CWs.24 to 26 and some
others together used to threatened and abused
accused No.1 with regard to the previous monetary
transaction taken place between accused No.14
and CW.25, in which accused No.1 had acted as
middleman. Accused No.1 had informed accused
No.15 about the harassment at the hands of
complainant and others and asked him to help and
also told him not to refund the advance money to
be paid by him to accused No.1. Thereafter, they
said to have conspired in the land of CW.25. On
15.10.2019 in between 4:40 p.m, to 4:43 p.m,
when the deceased Vittal and Maleyappa were
CRL.A No. 100360 of 2022
proceeding on the motorcycle No.KA-48/V-8068
near Aashraya plot, accused Nos,1 14 and 15
proceeding in a car No.KA-25/P-7149 driven by
accused No.15, he dashed the motorcycle both
Vittal and Maleyappa fell down. Thereafter,
accused Nos.1 and 15 said to have assaulted with
two swords on Vittal. At that time, Maleyappa tried
to rescue Vittal, accused No.14 said to have
assaulted with stone, accused No.1 allegedly
assaulted with the sword on Maleyappa and caused
the death of two persons. Appellant-accused No.1
and two others have filed bail application in
Spl.C.No.3/2020 and the same came to be rejected
by learned II Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Bagalkote by order dated 17.03.2020.
Therefore, the appellant-accused No.1 has
challenged the said order in the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-
accused No.1 would contend that, statements of
CRL.A No. 100360 of 2022
CWs.1, 16 and 17 are contrary. The motive stated
by CW.1 is ransacking of his house. But as per the
charge-sheet, the motive is alleged monetary
transaction. CW.16, the eye witness-Renuka has
stated that she was returned from Karate coaching
class in bus, but the auto driver Sayyadsab has
stated that he dropped her in his auto-rickshaw
and therefore, contradiction in that regard. As per
the statement of PSI-Shivashankar S.Mukari, the
motive is different than the motive alleged by the
complainant. As per the statement of one
Duragappa Talageri, he do not know who are the
eye witnesses, who have seen the incident. It is
his further submission that the appellant-accused
No.1 is in custody since 17.10.2019 and trial is not
yet commenced even though, the charge has been
framed on 25.08.2021. The delay in
commencement of the trial is not attributable to
the appellant-accused No.1. The charge-sheet
CRL.A No. 100360 of 2022
consists of 139 witnesses. The appellant-accused
No.1 is having 4 minor children, one widow mother
and a brother, who underwent surgery. It is his
further submission that he relied on the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State,
C.B.I/S.P.E., New Delhi V/s Pal Singh and
another reported in 2001 CRI. L. J. 744,
wherein it is held that accused cannot be detained
as under-trial prisoner endlessly and he is entitled
for grant of bail. It is his further submission that
without considering all these aspects, the learned
Sessions/Special Judge has rejected the bail
application of the appellant-accused No.1, which
requires interference by this Court. With this, he
prayed to allow the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned High Court
Government Pleader would contend that, there is a
recovery of car and weapon at the instance of
accused No.1. CWs.16 and 17 are two eye
CRL.A No. 100360 of 2022
witnesses, who are minors, who have specifically
stated the overtacts of the accused and CW.16 has
named the appellant-accused No.1. The post
mortem reports of the deceased Vittal and Maleppa
show that they have sustained seven and five
injuries respectively and their death is due to
shock as a result of injuries sustained over neck.
It is his further submission that the charge-sheet
material shows prima-facie case against the
appellant-accused No.1. The case involves double
murder. Therefore, the appellant-accused No.1 is
not entitled for grant of bail. Considering all these
aspects learned Sessions/Special Judge has rightly
rejected the bail application of the appellant-
accused No.1, which does not require any
interference by this Court. With this, he prays to
dismiss the appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2
would contend that, there are serious allegations
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 100360 of 2022
against accused No.1. Earlier two crimes have
been registered against him in Crime Nos.79 and
80 of 2019 of Mudhol Police Station and that is
motive for commission of the alleged murder of
two persons. The order sheet of the trial Court
reveal that there is a threat to the complainant
and his relatives by the relatives of the accused
and accused, who were left out in the charge-
sheet. Recently a case has been registered on the
complaint of Durgappa in Crime No.22/2022 as he
received threat to withdraw the cases. It is his
further submission that criminal petitions filed by
accused Nos.14 an 15 have been rejected by this
Court. The complainant has filed writ petition
No.101786/2021 challenging the dropping of
accused Nos.2 to 13 in the charge-sheet and with
a prayer for an investigation by a fresh agency.
The case involves double murder. There are two
child witnesses. It is his further submission that if
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 100360 of 2022
the appellant-accused No.1 is granted bail, there is
a threat to the life of said two child witnesses.
With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants-accused No.1, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent
No.1/State, this Court has gone through the
charge sheet material and the impugned order
passed by learned Sessions/Special Judge.
8. Initially, on a complaint lodged by
Yallappa Baramappa Talageri, a case was
registered against 13 accused persons.
Complainant is not an eye witness to the incident.
In the complaint, he has stated that he was
informed about the incident by one Dastageersab
Nadaf (CW29). He has further stated that on
enquiry with CW16-Renuka D/o Kadappa Talwar,
he came to know about the involvement of the
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 100360 of 2022
accused persons who are named in the first
information report. On completion of investigation,
charge sheet has been filed against the this
appellant-accused No.1 and two others, who are
arrayed as accused Nos.14 and 15. The case of
the prosecution is that, on account of previous
enmity, on 15.10.2019 at about 4.40 p.m, when
the two deceased namely Vittal Baramappa
Talageri and Maleppa Shantappa Talageri were
proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration
No.KA-48/V-8068, all the three accused persons
namely the present appellant-accused No.1 and
accused Nos.14 and 15 followed them in a car
No.KA-25/P-7149 driven by accused No.15-
Shankareppa and dashed the car against their
vehicle near Ashraya plot and thereafter, the said
accused assaulted the two deceased with swords
and stone and committed their murder. CWs.16
and 17 are the material witnesses. They are aged
- 13 -
CRL.A No. 100360 of 2022
about 13 years and 9 years respectively. Their
statements are recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. A
perusal of the statement of CW.16 no doubt shows
the presence of some of the accused named in
the FIR who are now not charge-sheeted.
However, her statement would also disclose the
presence and participation of appellant-accused
No.1. Both CWs.16 and 17 are child witnesses and
they are prime witnesses. Merely because, the
names stated by CW.16, accused Nos.2 to 13 not
charge-sheeted is not a ground to discard her
statement with regard to the present appellant-
accused No.1. Merely because, there is some
discrepancy in her statement recorded by the
police and recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C,
the appellant-accused No.1 is not entitled for grant
of bail on that ground only. This is a case of
double murder where two persons have been
- 14 -
CRL.A No. 100360 of 2022
brutally murdered on a broad day light. The post
mortem report discloses that both the deceased
sustained several incised and cut injuries. Merely
because, there is a delay in trial, is not a ground
for grant of bail when there is a prima-facie
material against accused No.1 and the case
involves double murder.
9. In view of the nature and gravity of the
offence, this is not a fit case to enlarge the
appellant-accused No.1 on bail. In the event of
grant of bail to the appellant-accused No.1, there
are all chances of he threatening the prosecution
witnesses. Considering all these aspects, the
learned Sessions/Special Judge has rightly rejected
the bail application of this appellant-accused No.1
by the impugned order. There are no grounds for
setting aside the said impugned order.
- 15 -
CRL.A No. 100360 of 2022
10. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AM
