Karnataka High Court
Mahantesh S/O. Adiveppa Bestawad vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7080
CRL.A No. 100233 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100233 OF 2024 (U/S 14 A(2) of SC
and ST ACT-)
BETWEEN:
MAHANTESH S/O. ADIVEPPA BESTAWAD,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AINAPUR, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI, NOW AT JAGADAL,
TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587311.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMESH B.CHIGARI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MUDHOL POLICE REPT. BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD
PIN-580011.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN 2. MURIGEPPA S/O. KASAPPA MADAR,
KATTIMANI AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/O: SORAGAON, LAXMINAGAR FARMHOUSE,
KARNATAKA TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDIYAVARA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A (2) OF SC AND ST
(POA) ACT, 1989., R/W 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE
BAIL REJECTING ORDER 05.04.2024 FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.,
PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BAGALKOTE IN MUDHOL P.S. CR.NO.55/2024, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 304 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SCHEDULE
CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7080
CRL.A No. 100233 of 2024
1989 AND MAY GRANT BAIL TO APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 BY
ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Shri. Ramesh B Chigari, learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri. Praveena Y Devareddiyavar, learned
HCGP for the respondent-State.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant being
aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 05.04.2024 in
crime No.55/2024 on the file of the II Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Bagalkot.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the
appellant and the deceased were boarding the bus to go to
their respective villages. There was a scuffle between
them to entering into the bus. The driver of the bus after
hearing the said scuffle, stopped his bus, he came along
with a conductor to enquire. In the meantime the
appellant and deceased got down from the bus and started
pushing each other. The appellant has over powered
against the deceased and pushed him into the molasses
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7080
pit. The deceased died due to suffocation. The said fact
made known to the mother of the deceased. The mother
of the deceased came to the spot and after having heard
and seen the incident and the circumstances, lodged a
complaint against the appellant.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for
the appellant that the appellant had no intention to
commit murder of the deceased. There was a quarrel
between the deceased and the appellant in connection
with entering inside the bus which resulted in causing the
death of the deceased.
5. It is further submitted that the ingredients of
Sections 3(2)(v) of the Act would not be attracted against
the appellant as the deceased was a stranger to the
appellant and the appellant was not aware the caste of the
deceased. The appellant is earning member of the family
and he is permanent resident of Ainapur, Athani Taluk and
he will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the
event of his release on bail. The appellant is in judicial
custody since 27.02.2024. Making such submission, the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7080
learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the
appeal.
6. Per contra, Sri. Praveena Y Devareddiyavar,
learned HCGP for state, vehemently, opposed the bail
petition and submits that, the appellant had deliberately
and intentionally pushed the deceased into the pit
contained molasses situated infront of the Nirani sugar
mill. The alleged offence is punishable with death or
imprisonment for life which is considered as heinous in
nature and therefore, the appellant is not entitled for bail.
Making such submission, the learned HCGP prays to
dismiss the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for respective
parties and also perused the averments of the complaint,
on reading of the entire averments of the complaint,
nowhere, it is stated that the deceased was pushed to the
pit of molasses, only on the ground that he belongs to a
particular community. Therefore, the ingredients of
Sections 3(2)(v) of the Act prima facie not attracted. Apart
from that, the allegations made against the appellant
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7080
regarding pushing of the deceased into the pit is
concerned, the investigating officer filed a case for the
offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC which is
punishable for imprisonment for 10 years. Moreover, the
intention of the appellant has to be established at the time
of Trial. Considering the age and occupation of the
appellant and also nature of offence, without adverting the
merit of the case, it can be inferred that the appellant has
made out a case to grant him bail.
8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in
Crime No.55/2024 of Mudhol Police Station, on the file of
II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, on
executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following
conditions:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7080
a) The appellant shall not threaten or tamper
the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the
proceedings of the Court.
b) The appellant shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the Court till disposal of the
case.
c) The appellant shall appear before the Trial
Court on all dates of hearing without fail.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RKM
CT:ANB
