High Court Karnataka High Court

Gadilingappa S/O Parasappa vs P S I Moka Police Station on 25 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Gadilingappa S/O Parasappa vs P S I Moka Police Station on 25 November, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH comm' ore' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD 
DATED THIS THE 25% DAY OF NOVE§9iB9ER-,._j:1_3fi1):8« _
BEFORE H H M   F" % '  _ V
THE HON'BLE MR Jusrgcs  _A'N3I'«.1f-;u5A.'.j',.  «
CRL.P.NOs.'7407I2008. '2*4o3J_2'ods. g
7348} 2003. 744oIgt3__n§3. 744,1i2oo3,%744.2_zgoo8,  »
7443I20O8_.f;13gi 744412033 
CRL.P.---N§r."74~!}7[--_gOG8':»  _

Gadi1i:3ga;.:pa;':fiSl oi ' '

 a_bo'uii 32 _ _'

Occ: Ag1ic13Ii*ef1i*i$tT»,,  " __

R/o.§,u<.,,Ha1,,viuage"  "

Tq. & D._isi. Bel_Iary{  .. PETITIONER

, '_    Advocate)

A  P. 81... Moka Police Station
.. Rep. "a~y"'State Public Prosecutor

High Court Circuit Bench Building
Dhaiwad. .. RESPONDENT

‘ . “my Sri N.Dim:sh Rae, GA 85 Spl.P.P and
% ” Sri P.H.(}otkhindi, HCGP)

This petition is filed under Section 439 Cir.P. C. praying
to enlarge the petitioner on bail in respect of Crime
No.108/2007 registered in MOKA Police Station, MOKA,
Bellary Taiuk and District for the ofiences p/11/Ss. L143, 14?,
148, 324, 325, 326, 448, 452, 114, l20~E , 307, 302 I’/W.
149 of IPC by allowing this cfiminai petifion.

CRL. P. 110.7408] 2008:

BETWEEN:

Gadilingappa, S/o.Parasappa

Aged about 32 years I ‘

Occ:Ag:ricu!turist

R/o.K.K.Ha1 Village T. _ V’ ‘
Tq. 85 Dist. Bcllaly. ” _ PEFQTFEQNER

(By Sri S.S.Yadrami, A_dvocatc_)_ :
AND: V é 1. %
The State of Karnataka..~- V _

By P.S.I. Moka’I?£)1ice€3tat:iQ}§ ‘ 1
Rep. by State Prosecutor ‘

High Cou3:°t”C§:*¢f:1ii*a’!t.3_eI1)

‘ms pm-¢g is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying

. éniarge A. the petitioner on bail in respect of Crime
. ‘mro.197;.:aao’zV Iegstered in MOKA Police Station, MOKA,

_ “B¢IiaI’y-Talfilx agd District for the ofibnoes p/11/Ss.143, 147,

” ._1″=:L3%,’ 324;.._3;2$,’A 325, 443, 452, 11.4, 120~B, 307, 302 r/W.

149 ofI_PC*?{;y”a11owing this criminal petition.

cRL.p.No.7o9ygoo3;

% 5]” iB E’rwEEN:

” S/o.KaIe Sunkanna
‘ = –Aged about 35 years

Doc: Agnbulmre,
R/o.K.I<LHa1 Village
Tq. as Dist. Bellaxy. .. PETITIGNER

(By Sri S.S.Yadrami, Advocate)»

AND:

The State of Karnataka

By Moka Police Station »’ .

Bellary. T c §”R’ESVE’–Q£~E

(By Sri N.Di11csh Rao, GA & Sp}. RP and .% ‘
Sri P.H.Gotk1n’ndi, Heep).

This petition is flied under J

to enlarge the pctitiometj on in v1V*r:spVect ” of ” Crime
No.10?/2007 Iegistcred as; No.55; on the
file ofPr1. Sessions Judge, ‘ — ”

Marcmxa, S16;

Agcdhbout 33 years
R/o.K.K.IfIa1
V, _;Tq. as Dist .. PETITIONER

« . S~.._S.Yadrami, Advocate)

The state of Karnataka
By Esfioka Police Station. .. RESPONDENT

‘A ‘T my Sri N.Dinesh Rao, GA 85 SpLP.P and
‘ Sri P.E~I.Gotkhin¢ii, HCGP)

This petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying
to enlarge the petitioner on bail in respect of Crime
No.1OB/2007 mgstemd as S.C. No.56] 2008, pending on the
file of Pd. Sessicns Judge, Bellary.

cRL.P.No.7440i20o8;

BETWEEN:

1. Kadappa,S/ojwlanumappa
Aged about 50 years ‘
Ooc:Agri., R] o.K.K.Hal
Tq. 85 Dist. Be]hary~583 19;.’ _

2. Somalinga, SI
Aged about 22 * A} ” _
0cc:Agri., R/o.K.K.Ha} ..

Tq. 85 Dist 1.01;.’ ‘

3. Durg,apfi;I_Sjo;Ka}1appa_”
Aged ah.-‘mt 52 * V

Tq. & ¥:”3cfla1*3=’;583 101.

4- Tayappaa SI Hamimfippa
aboiit 65 yaai”3
,V R! o. K.K;Ha1 Village
‘ “Tq. 85 Iiistfflelizéxy-583 101. .. PETITIONERS

% – .§}.Sofl%;1H’m.ath & L.V. K. Advocates)

X ‘—.4ThCvS1€;ifE2 bf Karnataka

By Moka Police Station.

Relay by High Court

.. A’ ‘State Pubiic Pmsccutor
” District~583 101. .. RESPONDENT

{By Sri l’3.Di;nt:sh Rm, GA &. Sp]. RP and
Sri P.H.Gotkhindi, HCGP)

This petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying
to yam: bail to the petitioners with conditions in

CR.No. 107/2007 of MOKA Police Station.

CRL. P. NQ744 I I 2008:

BETWEEN:

1. Iranna, S/o.Kasdappa
Aged about 20 years

Occ: Agri., R[o.K.K.Ha11Ifihge
Tq. as Dist. .

2. Mailaiah, s/o.Ha%;;uma_§pg ~
Aged about 38 ‘ ,
Occ:Agri., R]o.K.§{.VH&lVVfl_1age * 1 .,
Tq. as Dgsgagna-;’y. – ~ .. PETYFIONERS

(By Sri fiévocates)

‘I’h:é Sta1.e fo:[:<a mf .. % %
By Make. Police S~tatio_1r_1;~,
Benarypistact, % .. RESPONDENT

gay Sri n.nm¢gh Rae, GA 85 Sp}. mo and

;_Sri P:H.Gof;k'uit1di, HCGP)

V T. is filcd under Section 439 Cr.P. C. praying
._ to the petitioners with conditions in
A ?1cR.N_g.';t:_7T]2oo7 of MOKA Pbiice Station.

CR§_4. P. No. 744%OO8:

x ‘ _zgE’r{vEEN:

b’ Ifanna, S] o.Thayappa

Aged about 35 years

Occ: Agri.,R[o.K.K.Ha1 Village

Tq. as Dist. Be-llaxy. .. PETITIONER

(By Sri S.G.SoI1apurmath 8:» L.V.K. Advocates)

AND:

The Stats of Karnataka
By Moka Pblicc Station.

Bcllary District. ;’§:_RE$E§€}§iD;§§N’f’

(By Sri Nmnesh Rao, GA 81. S}:}i.iPV.I7″:1I&1(i’.” L: % M }
Sri P.H.Gotkhx’ndi, HCGP) ‘ ‘

This petition is ‘séfidcr prayiiig
to grant bail to the ptzzifioners ” cgondifions in
CR.N0. 10772007 of S-‘5’L£_iti0I1. ‘ ‘V

c§§;,§’P.

%

1- IAMIH-A Sl§L”45 a3*éfi:>§’
Aged.’ gabout 35′ years
% -vOcc:A%1’i-Q1?/o.K.K.HaI Village

» 2. S/’ofianumappa

‘ &i3.O’_£it 52 years
‘ AVg:ti,R/0.K.K.Ha1 Village
Tq, _&;E,)ist. Bellary.

3.” S/o.Kaddappa

about 20 years

V Gee: Agi, R]o.K.K.HaI Village

A Tq. as Dist. Bellazy.

4. Maliaiah, S/oflanamapgm
Aged about 38 years
Occ: Agxi, R/o.K.K.Ha1 Village
Tq. 85 Dist. Bellary.

5. Somalinga, S] o.Moka Pampanna
Aged about 22 years
O<:c:Agriculturist
R/o.K.K.Ha1 Village

Tq. 85 Dist.Be1laIy. é jP:éf4r:9fiC):~zE:2s j«

(By Sri S.G.S0}lapurmath -Ba «. ":
AN D:

The State of V
By Moka Police Statigli. vv ‘ -‘
Bellary Distzficig. ‘ ” ‘ V .. RESPONDENT
(By s;i.’r:’iajn§;§:-. %c:»a. av.» s;p1,’1=-j?” ‘And

Sri P.Ij.Cotkhi:;&i;’jvVHCGjP)

tinder Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying
to $9 ” petitioners with conditions in
CR. No;~1_O8.[ 2007* 9f Police Station.

A

A S/o.Ka11appa

“Agéti about 52 years
” .VC)¥cc: Agxi, R/o.K.K.HaI Village
Tq. 35 Dist. Bellary-583 101.

Tayappa, S/ofianamappa

Ageé about 66 years
Occ: Agri., R/o.K.K.Ha1 Village
Tq. & Dist. Bellaxy-583 101. .. PETITIONERS

(By Sri S.G.Sol}apurrnat.h & L.V.K. Advocates)

AND:

The State of Karnataka

ByMoka Police Station. I «.

Bcllary District. fl

(By Sri N.Dinesh Rae, GA as 5131. P«.’P_z’a’fid A. V’ ”
Sri P.H.Gotkhindi, Hosp} ” . V %

This petition finciger 43§Ci;.P.C. praying
to grant bail to Vwith conditions in
CR.No. 10312907 of MQK5 Statitggx,

These ‘ «V orders this day, the
Court m__r-mic _f{.)l1o\a_vi;1’g.;.. ‘

% QRBER

aln V. petitions, petitioners are seeking bail

‘( M _ 439 Cr.P.C. These petitions have arisen out of

V 2007 and crime N0.108/2007 zegistexed by

“-Moira Bcllaxy District.

” 2. The petitiancr in Cr1.P.No.7407/2008 and

‘Cir1.P.No.7408/ 2008 namely Gadilingappa Sfo Parasappa is

arrayed as accused No.18 in crime No.1{)8/€200? and

accused No.1 1 in crime No.10?’/2007. E
m. wiww W .

10

The petitionexs in Cr1.P.No.7444/

Durgappa, S/0 Kallappa and Thayappa S]

arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 7 Np. _

As per the case of 1V()3:x§’
standing enimity to
Lingayath of K. K. Hal
Village situate Aomoka Police Station.

The out of shafing of

watei; of one year prior to date of
occufiepce, to Nayaka community

was pzfsoiis iielonging to Lingayath community of

was long standing enimity between

V Afier the death of Sunkanna’, the persons

.’ were Waiting to take vengeance

again_et'[. persons of Lingayath community. The pmsecution

A “:. ‘ alleged that there was a criminal conspiracy between the

;accused arrayed in crime No.10?/2007 and Crime

No.108/2007, to eliminate the deceased persons, at this

stage of the proceedings, I do not find any material to accept

the same. In any event, the same being made on the basis of

statements given by accused during of

investigation, cannot be oonsidezfcd.’ A

3. It is the case of tizcék
about 7.45 p.1:a., pcfitionerddvdvniddmed other
accused in crime Nio;V.1O7,i 108/2007′
armed with deadly ‘choppers, sicklcs,
clubs ctc., with the common
object his younger
bmtigilcr f one Nagarajagouda. It is
that in furtherance of common

objccf _ of dssombly, the petitioners named above

. oigiaci’ ~aocus§v:ud””&t1’cspassed Athc house of the deceased-

Y./”

assaulted him with deadly weapons and

5fi.n3ta11tanoous death. When the wife of the

Ramanagouda came to rescue her husband, she

also assaulted. Thereafter, the accused an: alleged to

d Hhavc dxaggcd deceased uda to the house of

Ramaouda and assaulted him with choppers, sicklcs,

clubs and caused his death. Thexeaflcr the accused
in .

txespasscdf the house of Nagaxajagouda and assaulted him
‘i

with deadly weapons and causedmhis

M-3€u.€.»

Radhamma came tofiher husbanfi, she by

§_/* . .

accused. ‘Thus, the accuseti-are

three muxtiers in a row.

murders of    and
Nagarajagoudg are anggag    their family
membcifw     '

     Sushcelamma W/O
  was mgstcmd by Moka

Po1ic:1s«ff11* under Sections 143, 147, 148,

324, 323;”~3<1*i, #?i{48A,"v3(V)f1'§.Vr/W 149 we.

a complaint made by Radhamma, WI 0 deceased

_ crime No.108/2007 was registered for

afiengxes-;5umshab1e under Section 143, 147, 143, 324, 325,

.. ,3HO7,V"~4¢48, 302 r/W 149 [PC by Moka Police. T1118 above

A' 'eshaplaints were registered against persons named therein

for having committed ofibnces during the course of same

transaction, which resulted in death of three persons

namely, Ramanagaouda, S agouda and

Nagarajagouda and injuries to their fiamily IIkC1'."I1b€'fi':"ThE

~§\§1 C

13

facts narrated in the complaints given by

Ratihamxaa are rather over}appi;:g’;” A
The copy of __ ‘V
deceased Nagarajagowda, es
many as 23 injuries; fiecmms and
also amputation of the injuries are
described ae ‘ x V
” examination report of deceased
that he had sufiered as many as
14 cut into pieces, skull and CI’3333.it1JJ),

g-.555} . of the injuries found on his person

» ;”*¢%Iere.V_Cut«.;i 1i;§1;I’ies. The cause of death is shown as due to

= Viaeemonhage as a result of multiple injuries. The

examination report of deceased

” ve gouda would reveal, he had sufiered 5 injuries

the cause of death is shown as due to shock and

hamorrhage as a result multiple injuries.

\
§

I

I’VvC’/

“‘–…_.”an

14

6. The injury certificates ntlating to

Radhamma and Paiakshagouda would _

sufiemd mulfiplc grievous injuz’ies:.

suffered fracture of right _

At this stage of”the Ijsasons to
suspect the contents which would
Show that dcathsof ” uda and
They had sufihred.

and their death was
instanta’i1e(a:t1s.v ihcm are no reasons to suspect

the of certificates relating to Sushiias,

avgd Palav “” k ” ‘shagouda.

the complaint and furthcr statements of

and Radhamma, the death of R uda

: ‘an5;i_. I:1:.is””t:amther ouda had occurred near the

of R uda and the death of Nagarajagoucia had I

in his house. When Sushilamma, W/0

Ramanagouda went to zescue her husband, she was

assaulted and suffered injuries. Similarly, when Radhamma,

W] 0 of Nagarajagowda went to rescue her husbancfi
also assaulted and sufibred injuries. ‘ . A

At this stage of the case, V
place of occurmnce and presence Bf

place OfOCC1lI’I’6I1Cc, cannot ‘ . 1

~ 3. 1 have heani ‘: ieaxne’ci péfitiéacrs and
learned Special Pubhc

,9’; W’Vi’I”1e: for petitioners in
Cr1.P.~§rl.P.No.7408/2008 has made

The; petiiionexs in Cr1.P.No.7407_[2008 and
A No.7408/ 2008 namely Gadilingappa, S/0

has been falsely implicated in funhcr
. ‘Statement made by Sushjlamma.

‘IL : In tlact, the accused namely Sadakali S/0
Lingappa against whom similar allegahions are
made has been yantcd bail by this Court in
Cr}. P. No.2422/ 2008 and Crl. P. No. 247 1/ 2008.
Therefore, on the gmund of parity, petitioner in
CrI.P.N0.’?407/2068 and (3r1.P.N0.7408]20{}8 is

entitled to be released on bail. ffiwcéf
N ‘ ” \ t

16

In order to appreciate these subm£sé§i§5i1§;

nccessaxy to consider the contents gfpcompiainiijaaiifitad ‘V .

Sus and further statcmenfi 4′ } ~ A’

As per the by on
9.11.2007 at about 7.45 fisaciixdiag the
petitioner in CrI.P.No.9’7ii;i)_.’?]’i2()(§”i»£V:i’: P.No.7408/ 2008
namely Gadifingappa, ‘Sjo with deadly
weapons of the deceased
, _ ‘ ‘ «v..;5§”c%<:;1sx:tI~Chandm assaulted the
deccaséii So also other accused

assguitagi 'With deadly weapons. When she

" '~3_1_1c also assguitcd by the accused and

The compiaint narrated by Sush1ia' mma,

Wifizpf who was admittedly present in the place of

makes it ckear that, the petitioner namely

_Gad:i:2ingappa, S/o Parasappa, being a member of unlawful

Waésscmbly had tnespassw into thc house of the deceased

Ramanagaouda. After the deceased was done to death, he
left that place along with other accused and all of them

trespassed into the house of agouda. Therefore,

17

by the mere fact that the complainant hat} not ae}’ _

overacts to petitioner, it is not possible to is ..

ne prilnafacie case against X

Pmsecution cannot invoke ” I.P,§. the’ ;
accused. ‘ ‘V V_ V. .’ V
The occurrence ~-.i,asid’e At1ie house of
the deceased Ramanageegiee pei’ petitioner along
with other Weapons, would

p1’i:11a–faci3?:’ was one of the members

of furtherance of the common
object of the deceased Ramanagouda

wasfldene to _

‘A eixbeaission of learned Ceuneei for petitioner that

to bail on the ground of parity cannet be

aeeeptefil -A “for this Court while granting _bail in

.er1__. P. M2422; 2003 and 2471/2003, has not considered the

‘% ‘that the prosecution has invoked Section 149 me. This

= has not noticed the exhortation attxfiuted to the

petitioner. Thezefore, the petitioner cannot be released on

bail on the ground of parity. N» CL

10. The petitioner in cr1.P.No.7o§:;§/2:308
Cr1.P.No.’?348/ 2008 namely Max:é1ii1éi,’«S/’*9 ‘ AV
arrayed as accused No.5 is

the house ofthc deceased V

The learned coififiscl woufii Qubmjt that
his name is nofg narrated by
Sushilammaf submit that he has
been made by the
compj;éiiiiai1’L;.. fFhVeJ him is that he had
Thexeforc, there is no prima-
facig

” _Fg.:.1_ cmier tci ‘appreciate this submission, it is neccssaxy

V the prosecution case, that was spate of

accused had tresspasscd into the house of

the” Ramanagouda. After killing him, they

x V’ » into the house of Nagaxajagowda. When the Wives

qf”t1″1¢ deceased Ramangouda and Nagarajagouda intervened

rescue their husbands, they were also assaulted and

TU – V” “x,

19

It is true, in the complaint, ‘ L.

the names of all the accused. Sfie l:i?§_is’~

this petitioner and other in”~her .fi1ithe?.fj’s*.atement. ‘

The complaint was Ieeonrled ::)_1_;:§.~1_1’;v200’3.?. whee Sfiishilamma
was being treated at Bellazy. Her

further statement was 9:;

I 1. suffered by SushJ1a:n:una’
and ‘fixer to name the I accused
in v_eo’ns11dered as a circumstance in
favour of so, mentioning of name of this

statement, cannot be considered as

» _Vj1n.provet:ie11t at this stage. The prosecution has invoked

13.0., the mere feet that no overtact is

this petitioner, is not a suficiaent ground to

V. ‘g;.*a;1t According to the case of the prosecution, the
belongng to opposite community, had trespassed

V’ the house of deceased Ramanagouda and committed his

murder. Therefoxe, the wife of deceased Ramanagouda
namely Sushilannna who had witnessed the brats} killing of

her husband, must have been stunned and shocked. She

I’D’ £12» 1?’/W3 A ,

E

20

was also assaulted in the same course of tz~a11sa<:€.1Zo;3,'__ 5'ETv_.eix.if

them are omissions in the complaint .bj}5.5.:he_r, 3tii.<'-it

would not belie the contents "_1ier, it

Therefore, at this stage, it _is B0131;

petitioner was deliberately furthef

statement ofcompiai:§a~.1_1t

12. The, petitioneif %’§:;1;img.’*z34s/2093 namely
Maxenna, S1″-mé E3 533% as accused No.5 in
crime stage, it is relevant to state that
the VNo.1O8/2007 was narrated by

Ra(i}’.a_mm§i, V/o’1of Nagaxajagouda at 11.45 pm.

. ‘, . . . . . .4

* submitted by Earned Counsel for petitioner

mat, from giving the name of this petitioner, no

Q ~ mzgztaét is attributed to this petitioner.

As per the complaint nanated by Radhamma, W/o

Nagarajcgowda, that at about 7.45 13.31., this petitioner along

with other accused armed with deadly Weapons tmspassed

into the house of Nagarajagoada

W. V”

and agsaulteeil

‘\ .

Nagarajagouda, who at the Ieievant

television. The presence of b 7.

deceased Nagarajagouda at xcgf

particularly when there

prima-facic establish, AtV,1:1:.~ui§):uc’.~t:i’ti:*;.11c1″‘ aviizxxcmber of

unlawful assembly, “to commit murder
OH Nagarajagowdfi; 1:};ert::fB1*e; iigt to hold, them is

Iio pximagfairiga agajfist the

ix{“‘t:r1.P.No.7441/2008 namely
Imnfiéa, ‘S16 Mallaiah S/o Hamzmappa are

a4S’~Va§:ca1Sed ‘9 12 in crime No.107[2007 which

= xggistgmd }m=1–thc complaint narrated by Sushilamma,

9 ‘ o1.1da. The learned Counsel for petitioners

‘9sfdéi1d that in the complaint narrated by Sushiiamtna

on’9… 1«:_.20{)’i”, there is no reference to these petitioners and

” ~ fiave been imylicatcd in the further statement of

rccordcd on 12.11.2007.

in the discussion made supra, I have given the reasons

for rejecting the similar submissions made on behalf if
. ‘/-N->»-=-“2

22

petitioners in Cr1.P.No.7092./2008 ‘and (‘,_1jl_,

The same reason holds good fa}; the of

Icarned Counsel for petitioners I ‘V L

15. The pefitioncr 3″,’:Vitv.,:._V'{‘2rl_.P.i’*V1’o.77’fl4¢3′:f3Z/ ions namely
iranna, S/o Thayap3}4a..,is a $0.6 in crime’
No.10′?/2007 negistereti narrated biz
Sushi1amma,”£§(:[o «contended by learned
fibm mentioning the name
in tfie _t;isVzWattIibutcd to the petitioner.
A.t th.c ‘riskfir it is necessary to state that

c4I;’mc,..No..V107[:’2{)07V’ was rcgistczed for ofienccs punishable

. 1′:ndé:~j’¢,’séc:ipns 14$, 14:7, 143, 324, 326, 352, 114, 397, 448

3 no 149 i.P.C. The death of Ramanagouda had

A in his house. The petitioner and other accused

AA Ttxcopagéscd into the house of Ramanagouda and caused his

V’ ” .doath. If no overtact is attributed to this petimrner, that

would not absokvc the vicarious liability of petitioners under

Section 149 1.110. Therefore, this submission cannot be

p,,.,,,,.,6,.,…,.

acceptzd. IUC, ‘

23

16. The petitioner in Cr}..P.No.744B,3f§0(§8ff:.

Iranna S/o Tayappa, petitionczfg Din

Kadappa Sfo Hanamappa, ,_-Sf?)

S/0 Hanamappa and SoI:£a3.7111gai§,f’d
arrayed as accused Nos. _v16, ‘m crime
No.108/2007 Séctions 143,
147, 143, 3251, 325,AVV_3{§’.??, 149 1.13.0. on a

complaint by: is the Wife of

A’
It “<§o11tcnts of complaint narrated by
Radhai)im_g.a,., "N%:gax'ajagouda, the complaint was

atV.'ab<111j;_'41.1.4S p.m. on 9.11.2097 v§rm1e she was

.A hospital at Bellary. Her further statement

._ 12.11.2007. In the complaint given by her,

from giving the names of 8 accused, she has

AA other accused armed with deadly weapons trespassed
' her house and committed the murder of her husband.

: in her further statement, she has given the names of these

petitioners as mcmbers of unlawfui assembly. These

petifioners armed with deadly weapons had trespassed into

f\/'…e£v—«C3~s.»–~

1.5,..- ,

24

the house of Nagarajagowda and committee
pxesence of these petitioners a}.c;1’1§ with {mo 1 V
were armed with deadly I
Nagarajagouda with tabesehvh 1o1’1Vg
standing enimity, they were
members of etage of the case,
they cannot vasfciiel’ “finder Section 149

of learned Counsel for

petiiizgnexs to bail, cannot be accepted.

_ 17;L””‘~3’1;’e.p’g–=:tiAi:i;3rieie. in Crl.P.No.’7444/2008 nameiy

‘~ A S/on and Thayappa, S/o Hanamappa are

‘ Nos. 1 and 7 in crime No. 108/ 2007

efiences punishabie under Sections 143, 147,

32;}, r/W. 149 LP. C. on the complaint narrated by

V. W10 deceased Nagarajagouda. The complaint

AA’w»a’.eA1eoorded at about 11.45 pm. on 9.11.1997 when she

V’ treated in VIMS hospitai at Bellamy. In the complaint,

she has gven the names of petitioners 1 and 2 as members

of unlawful assembly, who had txespassed into her hguse. I

t I
iv

-….c’

25

is stated that petitioner No.1-Durgappa had assai11iec1″‘~1;cr

with a chopper. It is also stated that

Thayappa, S/o Hanamappa had a§;s.au,Itcd_~6ii ‘ b

back and neck of deceased “g:tagé;VT%jit

cannot be disputed that Nagmngjagéudé «1iea,[§::v1Va%V%;;cgmt% of *

multiple injuries sufihmd Wjo
Déagarajagouda, in the course
of the same ;sta;jc, are no reasons

to disbe~}isvié’ ti”1’c. E,£:n.teB:.fs=._Gf

.18,’ The for petitioners has contended

that, in < 70f '- gmnted by this Court in

&C1§;..f'.F§o.72§0/2£)'O'8""V and Cr1.P.No.7261]2008 to

No.1 in crime No. 108/ 2007, these'

';3'~2,ft4'1"Vfio1:tvr:.19s5: as accused in Crime No.1(}8/2607 are

entitlegiio bail on the gound of parity.

On careful consideration of the order made by this

in Crl,P.No.726{}/2008 and Cr1.P.No.7261/2008 , I

find, this Court has not eonsidemd the plight cf the

complainant when her statement was recorded. At the risk of

26

repetition, it is necessary to state, as per 1’31¢
pmsecution, the complainants namely
Radhamma had witnessed the; 1A$’i’iit£*.1_v »f’
husbands in their houaea A. ‘wezee
injured. The statements ‘VVh<);apita1';
Bellary. Therefore, oz21.i§sio1;e.e"ttxq:A.a..t.'1:1e naineaflof all the
accused in the to grant bail.

It is needlesa f2i:”state,;:’f1’ie’ the be and end of

the “”‘i’il*_a._»:=;V complainants were
mconied Therefore, the ground of

parity is”n.pt H fiefitionezs.

Ac seen from the records, there was long

between party of the petitioners and the

o f As already stated, one Sunkanna, who

belcngie-d the party of the deceased was kzilked one year

” xpiicr to the date of occurmnce. if the accused are released

‘Ken Hbail, the possibility of the party men of the deceased

V H “reacting in a retaha’ tory Mmegm , cannot ht-‘oo1np};e’£ely'[:§i1]ed

out In View of existence of prima-cfacie ease and also having

regard to the nature of ofiences alleged against the accuseti,

N 1/ween’

I am of the 0pm’ ion that it would not be “of .,

justice ti} giant baii to pefifi0mm;;’;Pcf_iéfi:):;€1$

bail, are likely to tamper pméuaciition

are also lilmly ta-flee away

For these

j 1
,.

mag:

Ets*