Peerasab Rajesab Chikkur vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 12055 Kant

                             -1-




                                    CRL.A No. 100398 of 2022


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

                           BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100398 OF 2022

BETWEEN:


1.    PEERASAB RAJESAB CHIKKUR
      AGE. 28 YEARS,
      OCC. PRIVATE WORK,
      R/O. WARD NO. 1 KILLA GALLI
      KERUR, TQ. BADAMI
      DIST. BAGALKOTE 587206

2.    SADDAMAHUSEN RAJESAB KOTWAL
      AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC.COOLIE
      R/O. WARD NO. 1 HALAPET
      JALAGERI, TQ. BADAMI
      DIST. BAGALKOTE 587 206

3.    RAIYAZ BASHESAB KOTWAL
      AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE
      R/O. WARD NO. 1 KILLA GALLI
      KERUR, TQ. BADAMI
      DIST. BAGALKOTE 587 206

4.    SADDAM DAVALASAB ITAGI
      AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. B.ED STUDENT
      R/O. WARD NO. 2 PENDARI ONI
      KERUR, TQ. BADAMI
      DIST. BAGALKOTE 587 206
                                               ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAKESH S HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE)


AND:
1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                              -2-




                                   CRL.A No. 100398 of 2022


     BY KEURU POLICE
     REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     DHARWAD BENCH 580011

2.   LAXMAN S/O RAMAPPA KATTIMANI
     AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
     R/O. KERUR, TQ. BADAMI
     DIST. BAGALKOTE 587 206
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.
RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED.)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A (2) OF SC /ST
ACT AND U/S 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL
AND ORDER TO RELEASE THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3
AND 5 ON BAIL IN KERUR P.S. CR.NO.128/2022 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307,
504, 506, 109, 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r)(s)(2)(va) OF SC
AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BAGALKOTE.

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and

5 challenging the order dated 10.08.2022 passed in

Kerur Police Station Crime No.128/2022 by the

learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Bagalkote, whereunder the bail application filed by

the appellants for the offences punishable under

CRL.A No. 100398 of 2022

Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 109,

504 and 506 read with Section 1149 of The Indian

Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for

brevity) and Sections 3(1)(r) (s) and 3(2)(va) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter

referred to as 'SC & ST Act', for brevity) came to be

rejected.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

appellants and the learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1/State. Respondent No.2

who was present physically on the previous date had

prayed not to grant bail to the appellants.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, one

Laxman Ramappa Kattimani has filed the complaint

stating that his brother Arunkumar Kattimani is

actively involved in an organization and that has

enraged the local Muslim community and hence they

had threatened him on several occasions and on

CRL.A No. 100398 of 2022

01.07.2022 when the said Arunkmar Kattimani was

protesting against the murder of Kanhaiya Lal, the

complainant learnt that the Muslim community has

devised a plan to commit the murder of his brother

Arunkumar Kattimani. It is further stated that, on

06.07.2022 when the complainant reached Kerur bus

stand, he found that, on the main road in front of

Ganesh Hotel, all the accused Nos.1 to 31 were

abusing his brother and another in filthy language

and during which accused No.1 has assaulted the

complainant's brother on his head with axe, accused

No.2 has assaulted with axe on his back, accused

No.3 assaulted on his left leg joint with iron rod,

accused No.4 assaulted on his head with iron rod,

accused No.5 has assaulted on his back with an axe.

Accused No.6 abetted her son accused No.4-Mousin

to finish him and gave chopper. When the

complainant came to rescue, accused No.17

assaulted with rod on his head and made an attempt

to murder him(complainant) and the others have

CRL.A No. 100398 of 2022

assaulted on his stomach, back, chest and caused

internal injuries and at that time, when Yamanoor

Chungi came to rescue him, accused Nos.19 and 23

have assaulted him with iron rod on his head and

other accused assaulted on face, stomach and back

with hands and abused touching the caste and at

that time, one Mallappa Sulekere and others pacified

the quarrel and the quarrel took place at about

5:00pm and the injured were taken to Kerur

Government Hospital and thereafter they were

referred to Kerodi hospital, Bagalkote. The said

complaint came to be registered in Kerur Police

Station Crime No.128/2022 for the aforesaid

offences. The appellants came to be arrested on

07.07.2022 and they are in judicial custody. The

appellants filed bail application and it came to be

rejected by the impugned order dated 10.08.2022

passed by the learned II Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Bagalkote. The said order is

challenged in the instant appeal.

CRL.A No. 100398 of 2022

4. Learned counsel for the appellants would

contend that the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 and

5 would contend that in respect of the very said

incident another crime has been registered in Kerur

Police Station Crime No.126/2022 against 10

accused persons and the said complaint has been

filed by one Head Constable by name

H.B.Yadabadagi. The present FIR registered on the

basis of the complaint of one Sri Laxman Ramappa

Kattimani is the second FIR in respect of the same

incident and therefore, it is abuse of process of law.

On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarak Dash

Mukharjee & Or s. V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

reported in 2002 Live Law (SC) 731 . It is his further

submission that, appellant No.1/accused No.1 was

not on the spot at the time of the incident and as

per the certificate issued by the President, Pattan

Panchayat, Kerur, he was engaged in digging pit in

graveyard at Kerur between 2:00pm to 7:00pm. It

CRL.A No. 100398 of 2022

is his further submission that, appellant

No.4/accused No.5 is a student studying B.Com and

if he is continued in the prison, it will affect his

education career. With this, he prayed to allow the

appeal.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader would contend that the documents which are

produced by the appellants' counsel in this appeal

were not produced before the Sessions Court at the

time of passing the impugned order and therefore,

they cannot be considered in this appeal. It is his

further submission that investigation is still in

progress. The Investigating Officer has collected the

wound certificates of Arunkumar Kattimani and

Laxman Ramappa Kattimani and they have sustained

grievous injuries. The statement of all the 3 injured

have been recorded which reveal the overt act of

each of the appellants. There is recovery of the

weapons used by the appellants/accused to assault

the injured. It is his further contention that the

CRL.A No. 100398 of 2022

appellants have not taken up the contention of

registration of multiple FIRs before the Sessions

Court and therefore, they cannot raise that

contention in this appeal. The offences alleged

against the appellants are heinous offenses and one

of the offences is punishable with imprisonment for

life. The learned Sessions Judge considering all

these aspects has passed the impugned order which

does not call for interference by this Court. With this

he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for

the appellants regarding registration of multiple FIRs

cannot be considered in this appeal, as he has not

taken up the said contention before the Sessions

Court. The appellants are at liberty to challenge the

registration of multiple FIRs, if they are so adviced.

There are specific averments in the complaint that

these appellants assaulted Arunkumar Kattimani with

deadly weapons and caused injuries. The wound

certificate of Sri. Arunkumar Kattimani reveal that

CRL.A No. 100398 of 2022

he has sustained 8 injuries which corresponds to the

overt act alleged against the appellants.

Investigation is still in progress. One of the offences

alleged is Section 307 of IPC which is punishable

with imprisonment for life. Considering all these

aspects, the learned Sessions Judge, has rightly

rejected the bail application of the appellants by the

impugned order. Merely on the basis of the

certificate issued by the President of Pattan

Panchayat, Kerur, regarding presence of appellant

No.1/accused No.1 at graveyard on the date and

time of the incident, his plea of alibi cannot be

considered at this stage. The appellants have not

made out any grounds for interfering with the

impugned order.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

kmv