Siddesh @ Siddeshwar vs State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2010

IN THE I-IEGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA 

CRICUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD 

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY or JANUg§:RS?;:'V§i3'fi)_'*' *

BEFORE~-_  M"

TI-IE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIcE 

CRIMINAL PET1:'flO.pI No'-.7o29)A2(§. 1o%  

BETWEEN:

1.

Siddesh@ siddeshwafs ‘
S / 0. Mudukappa KuVta>gamr_i
Age: 35 yearS,’ =OcC;_i Agfii: A L

R/0. Hirekiheda vi11’agea_
Tq : GangaV_”athi7?’… V ”

Dist: Koppal ;f_ ‘ ‘

. Bheé1na’nag0uda]. ”

S / 0. Huanumafith9:p’pA’::(3adiyar
Age: 27 yéaIs’,~Occ’:- Agril
R-jrf.o.v 1*Iirekhé2’t”i9sj.._\/..1fllage

_ A’ ‘Pg: Gangaflvahi
‘ ‘Distv:__K0:pp”a1._

Petitioneis

(By “S1t.i.iR;»;1j.é{shekhar Gunjalli, Adv. )

The State of Karnataka,
~Reptd. By its S.P.P.,

f_____(‘\I’\.——-

Ix.)

High Court Building
Dharwad
(Kanakagiri P.S.)

….. Re«is_j:)onde’nt or M V’ ._

(By Sri. P.H.Crotkhindi, HCGP)

This Criminal Petitioh’-.jg”~._fil€(2li. 4395:’
Cr.P.C. praying to allow the pet’ition by granvtingi regular bail

in Crime No. 84/2009″Kankagir’i

This Criminal Petition com_iit’ig«.ori. for Order on this
day, the Court made the”foll0WirIg: V ” ” ”

eanaR
islfiilxsvrii u/s 439 Cr.P.C. filed by
the peititiorieri’i’*iosii’ili”an’d.. 2 “who are respectively accused

Nos. 1 anc_1_4″1VO 84/09 of Kanakagiri police

stationi, GangaVathi___TAaluk, Koppal District. This petition is

prosecution. Heard both the sides.

2. Theabiove said crime came to be registered against as

als”’22 accused including the two petitioners herein on

tlieibiasis of the complaint dtd: 25/ 1 1/2009 flied by the one

C Mariyappa S/0. Siddappa resident of 1-Iirekhed village in

,.~-…(“”””””””

5-.rJ

Gar1gavathiTaluka. The said case was registered initially

for the offences under sections 143,:47,og;t4g,s23,

324,307,504 r/w 149 of we. As it could the

said complaint, the incident of”A’riotirfl1gA

24/11/09 at about 9.30 pm in’:”fror1Vt ofitifie”ho1,is:e’–~of”the A

complainant and during the”‘-said incideiits
and his father namely ‘.’t’hie:’.it-ideVceasedi–HSiddappa were
assaulted with axe’ it the accused
Bheemanagoudaifl’5/ who is petitioner
No.2 hereiiiy triorni the said complaint that
duringviviithe No.1 Siddesh who is

petitiorieru No.1 to have assaulted on the

back_– Kiuar1.akai§pa”- went to rescue the deceased

The’ iéoiiice papers submitted by the learned HCGP

ii.”4″=H”i’eveal..that, the deceased Siddappa died on 26/ 11/2009. As

i’ . ii-tiicouid be seen from the postmortem examination report,

-tiiere was a 6 ‘/22 inches length injury over his head of the

¢

deceased that was caused with a sharp edged weapon and
cause of the death was due to ‘coma’ as a result of head

injury sustained.

4. It is clear from the above that the

Bheernangowda was responsibleiii ifo: ‘–«causing_ death. of

deceased by inflicting the said hea’dAii’i_iiiry iiiim
with axe, a sharp edged be that
while so assaulting petitioner’ accused did
not intend to cause .–‘the.f_’circumstance under
which he gandi iised by him clearly
indicate t’;1ati.i\yi’:ii-e::ass’aii1t-ingi so he has that he was likely to

cause the».death’ oft”.ithe::_i’_.deceased. Therefore, I am of the

cons§i.de_r’ed opiiniongtliat he does not deserve the grant of

of the learned counsel for the

petitioneyr that this petitioner is permanently residing at the

it address shown in the bail petition and as such he couid not

be said to misuse his liberty if he is granted bail. T his fact

,~»—f”””\/—-~e

does not outweigh strong case made out by the prosecution

against him. op ,

6. However, petitioner No. 1 Siddesh who -‘is’-V._”‘L’ac’cuused

No.1, is aileged to have assaulted the

with knife on his back. Therefofre,” i~arr1″__of’op11i.ion’v-that

he deserve for grant of bail. Henc’e,__ thieifo1io*._v.ir1g:~. V’

..am:Egs
The present petition only in respect

of @,’VVSiddeshwaer who is accused
No.1 of Kanakagiri police station,

Gang-a_vath<i"'Ta1uk.; Koppiai District.
_ppetit'ion_____is rejected in respect of petition No.2

'n.a.meA1y__if3h'e.eh1anagouda who is accused No. 10 in the said

ca she'.

The petitioner No.1 here in (A–1) shall be enlarged on
bail on his furnishing a self bond for Rs.30,000/– with
one surety for the iikesum to the ” ..the

committal Court, subject to the following it

a) he shall not directly inc}:.Ai1*ectloy

prosecution evid.e:1_ce “shallow . tithe
prosecution _ it

1)) he shall coéofjcérattie ‘investigetting
officer during.

be sent forthwith to the

committal C-‘.ou1’t_co:nce’r~nie’d for information and compliance.

sd/4
JUDGE

Vmitiu