Karnataka High Court
Manjegowda G.C vs State Of Karnataka By on 12 January, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1647
CRL.A No. 2382 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2382 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MANJEGOWDA G.C.
S/O CHANDREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/O 141B
BASAVAPATNA ROAD
JOBIGUBBI VILLAGE
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN - 573 210.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M SHARASS CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
HALLYMYSORE POLICE STATION
MURTHY RAJASHRI REPRESENTED BY SPP
Location: HIGH
COURT OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. MOHANKUMAR G S
S/O LATE SANNAMANAJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT JODIGUBBI VILLAGE
HALLYMYSORE HOBLI
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN - 573 210.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SATHISHA.D.J, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1647
CRL.A No. 2382 of 2023
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
HONBLE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPL. JUDGE,
HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN IN CR.NO.136/2023, FOR
OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 323, 327, 324, 307, 354B, 506, 34 OF
IPC AND U/S 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, WHICH
IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by accused No.1 praying to set
aside the order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Additional
District and Sessions Judge Hassan, whereunder the bail
petition of this appellant-accused No.1 sought in respect of
Crime No.136/2023 at Halli Mysore Police Station
registered for offence under Sections 504, 328, 354, 506
r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short hereinafter referred
to as `IPC') and sections 3 (1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the
Schedule Cast and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as
'SC and ST Act'), came to be rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:1647
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, 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, respondent
No.2 has filed complaint stating that on 24.11.2023 at
about 1.00 p.m. he went inside the bar near his Jodigubbi
village along with his friend Nagaraju. There was delay in
supply of drinks, wherein complainant questioned the
same, the cashier-Yogesh has warned him and assaulted
on his cheek and chest. The workers in the bar and beeda
shop owner has also assaulted him and kicked him. They
have snatched his mobile worth of Rs.30,000/- and cash of
Rs.30,000. The complainant sought return of his mobile
and cash. At that time, bar owner/appellant-accused No.1
came and abused him by taking his caste name and
assaulted him with empty beer bottle on his head and
attempted to commit his murder. It is alleged that
appellant-accused No.1 is also assaulted the mother of
respondent No.2 who came to the spot subsequently. The
said complaint came to be registered in crime
NC: 2024:KHC:1647
No.136/2023 of Halli Mysore Police Station for the
aforesaid offences. The appellant-accused No.1 came to be
arrested on 03.12.2023 and he is in judicial custody.
Appellant-accused No.1 filed bail petition and same came
to be rejected by the Additional District and
Sessions/Special Judge, Hassan by impugned order dated
12.12.2023, which is challenging in this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused
No.1 would contend that the alleged date of incident is
24.11.2023 and the complaint came to be filed on
26.11.2023 and there is delay in filing the complaint. He
further submits that there is dispute between appellant
and wife of respondent No.2 as wife of respondent No.2
has raised objections for bar business in the village and
sought for its closure. He contends that the appellant, who
being the owner of the bar was not present at the time of
the incident and he came subsequently. The injured has
been discharged from the hospital on 26.11.2023 and
there is no danger to the life of the injured. The injuries
alleged have been sustained by respondent No.2 are
NC: 2024:KHC:1647
simple in nature. He contends that the major portion of
the investigation is over and therefore, this appellant-
accused No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation.
With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to
the appellant-accused No.1.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
and learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1-State both submits that the investigation
is in progress and if the appellant-accused No.1 is granted
bail, there are chances of hampering investigation and
tampering the prosecution witnesses. One of the offence
alleged against this appellant-accused No.1 is Section 307
of IPC which is punishable with imprisonment for life. They
contend that wife of respondent No.2 has raised objections
for the bar business and sought for its closure and
enraged by that the appellant-accused No.1 being a bar
owner not only assaulted respondent No.2-complainant
and also abused him taking his caste name and assaulted
his mother. Considering the said aspects, the learned
NC: 2024:KHC:1647
Sessions/Special Judge has rightly rejected his bail
petition. With this, they prayed for dismissal the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
this Court has gone through the impugned order, FIR
complaint and other documents.
7. The alleged incident has taken place on
24.11.2023. The complaint has been filed on 26.11.2023.
It is stated in the complaint that complainant was in
hospital and after his discharge on 26.11.2023 he has filed
the complaint. The appellant-accused No.1 is owner of the
bar. The wife of the complainant/respondent No.2 when
she became Chairman of the Gram Panchayat, she along
with others made representation to the authority to close
the bar. As per averments of the complaint and spot
mahazar the alleged incident has been taken place inside
the bar. The accusation against this appellant-accused
No.1 is that he assaulted respondent No.2-complainant
with empty beer bottle on his head. The wound certificate
furnished by the learned counsel for respondent No.2
reveals that the complainant has sustained four abrasions
NC: 2024:KHC:1647
and there is no fracture. The injuries sustained by
respondent No.2-complainant are simple injuries. The
injured has been discharged from hospital on 26.11.2023
and there is no danger to the life of this respondent No.2-
complainant as he has been discharged from hospital. As
the major portion of the investigation is over this
appellant-accused No.1 is not required for custodial
interrogation. The apprehension of the complaint and
prosecution that if appellant/accused No.1 is granted bail,
there are chances of he hampering the investigation and
tampering the prosecution witnesses can be met with by
imposing stringent conditions. Without considering all
these aspects, the learned Sessions/Special Judge has
passed the impugned order, which requires interference by
this Court. In the result, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
12.12.2023 by the Additional District and Sessions/Special
Judge, Hassan is set-aside. The bail petition of the
appellant-accused No.1 is allowed. The appellant -
NC: 2024:KHC:1647
accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime
No.136/2023 at Halli Mysore Police Station Station,
subject to the following conditions;
(i) The appellant-accused No.1 shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for
the likesum to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer.
(ii) The appellant-accused No.1 shall not tamper
the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The appellant-accused No.1 shall cooperate
with Investigating Officer in the investigation.
(iv) The appellant-accused No.1 shall attend the
Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted
and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.
(v) The appellant-accused No.1 shall not involve
himself in commission of any offence during
the pendency of the case registered against
him.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DSP
