Karnataka High Court
Shri. Nagaraj S/O Arjun Araballi vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2023
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13942
CRL.A No. 100464 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100464 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SHRI. NAGARAJ S/O ARJUN ARABALLI,
AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. KARADIGUDDI, TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. NAGARATHNA S. PATTAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE P S I MARIHAL,
R/B STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. SHRI. HALASIDDA S/O CHENNAPPA ANGADI,
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE,
R/O. SUNAKOPPI, TQ. BAILHONGAL,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI 3. SHRI. RAMESH S/O BASAVARAJ CHANDARGI,
Digitally signed by
AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE,
VIJAYALAKSHMI M
KANKUPPI R/O. KHANAGAVI, TQ. GOKAK,
Date: 2023.12.07
11:56:04 +0530 DIST. BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 & R3 ARE SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF SC/ST
ACT, SEEKING TO ALLOWING THIS APPEAL THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO. 4 MAY BE RELEASED ON REGULAR BAIL,
IN MARIHAL P.S. CRIME NO.48/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC.
143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302, 427, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND
SEC. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST ACT PENDING ON THE FILE
OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13942
CRL.A No. 100464 of 2023
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by accused No.4 challenging the
order dated 25.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc.
No.809/2023, by learned III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Belagavi wherein the bail petition filed by
the appellant in Crime No.48/2022 of Marihal Police
Station registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302, 427, 504, 506
read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
came to be rejected.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellant and the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1- State. In spite of
service of notice, respondent Nos.2 and 3 remained absent
and unrepresented.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13942
3. 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 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 had
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13942
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 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
investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused
persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13942
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.
4. The appellant-accused No.4 earlier filed criminal
appeal No.100400/2022 challenging rejection of his bail
petition and the same came to be dismissed by this Court
by judgment dated 18.10.2022. Thereafter, the appellant
filed Crl.Misc. Petition No.809/2023 seeking bail and the
same came to be rejected by learned III Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Belagavi by order dated 25.07.2023.
The said order is challenged in this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would
contend that accused Nos.5 to 13 are on bail, even
accused No.7 against whom the overtact of assaulting
deceased with sickle has been granted bail. Therefore,
appellant-accused No.4 is entitled for grant of bail on the
ground of parity. He contends that even as per the
statement of CW.11 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, appellant
and accused No.3 only brought to the knife and it is
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13942
accused No.3 who assaulted the deceased on stomach
with knife. The allegation against this appellant-accused
No.4 is that he assaulted deceased with stone as per
statement of one Bandenawaj recorded under Section 164
of Cr.P.C. She further contended that charge-sheet has
been filed and even there is no commencement of trial.
She further submits that there is a counter case and
deceased and others are aggressors, who came to the spot
with weapons. With this, she prayed to allow the appeal
and grant bail to the appellant.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1-State would contend that the
serious overact of assault by knife on stomach of the
deceased has alleged against this appellant/accused No.4.
C.Ws. 10 to 18 are eye witnesses and among them CW.10
is injured. The statement of C.W.10-Ramesh recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C reveal that this
appellant/accused No.4 has assaulted with knife to the
deceased. On perusal of the PM report, there are
corresponding injuries on his chest and stomach. This
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13942
being the successive petition seeking bail. The
appellant/accused No.4 has not made out any grounds for
seeking bail. With this, she prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1-State, this Court has gone through the
charge sheet records and impugned order.
8. As per charge sheet column No.17 and
statement of CW.10 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
this appellant/accused No.4 has assaulted the deceased
with knife on his stomach. On perusal of the P.M. report,
there are corresponding injuries on the stomach of the
deceased. The doctor who conducted P.M examination
over the dead body of the deceased has opined that death
of the deceased is due to shock and Hemorrhage as a
result of multiple injuries sustained. Other accused who
have been granted bail, no overact is alleged against
them. The accusation against this appellant/accused No.4
and accused Nos.1 to 3, they have assaulted deceased
with Talawar and knife and caused injuries. There are 14
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13942
injuries found on the dead body of the deceased as per the
P.M. report.
9. On perusal of the charge sheet material, there
is prima facie case against this appellant/accused No.4 for
the offences alleged against him. If the appellant/accused
No.4 is granted bail there are chances of he threatening
the complainant and other eye witnesses.
Appellant/accused No.4 has not made out any new
grounds for bail in this successive appeal.
10. Considering all this aspects, learned Sessions
judge has rightly rejected bail by impugned order. There
are no grounds to interfere in the impugned order passed
by the Sessions Court. In the result, the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AM & AC
CT:BCK
