IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATIQQQ' ' ' i'_:f
CIRCUIT BENCH Af1j;:)r§ARwArr f A
QATED THIS THE 1 1m mg 0:?
BEEQgE __ V ".. .v; V
THE HOBFBLE Mi?.JUu5.§'1"f:CE_VV JA{afA:;$ :§AH 1:M
CRL.P.NO.?66%3i~?Q_Q_.§ .éfwj' (;~..§1;P,}76g§Z;£§o9
IN cxL.:~.xo.7_563/2009; '
BETWEEN:
h x %;4."k#f8w'
S/0 Nagappa, age: 43{J' y¢ars, ' '
I. Pmasapéza
2. Manjappa,
S/0' Nagappag. :':a.gc':v yams,
gvfirxth _Vid{'é11t.S' of:
_" ' *
K1id£2Iigi.ff'a1uk,
,Qi_sm'ct. PETITIONERS
( '3;g".é§.=.%-1; (3. P351, Advocatzz)
V ,m;A% %
* 7'{'.hcvT.'$11b~ft1sp<zctor of Police,
its SPF,
'High Court ofKarz1a.taka,
--. B61163}, Dhaxwad. RESP€)NE)ENT
" " my Sri.P.H. Gotkhindi, ace?)
fl
to grant bail in SC No.36/2009 (Crime 'm~..o.1$s'j--ag;-----.m
This criminal petition is filed 11/8 439 of
petitioners.
IN CRL.P.NO.7626[ 2009:
BETWEEN:
1.
Mahalingappa, 'v . _ . 2
S/0 Ma1inagappa.r:;VNag;-1ppa,_:'- * . _ fl
Age: 35 Years, I 2 '
Occ: Agriculturist, _
R/o. Kafik-'E'._1111 Ho$*&}'..ai;3:i, ~_ _ «V
Kudligim-'~«._V
Bcnary%.I3isnf"'__._V_ . I '
Shivaiinaap::sa.kk _
S;/o Maa'ii3aga;5Paré'Nfagappa,
R] o.x'z'<I_ai'i1\vta31'1:_ Hogalgalli,
1. §{!.1§1ligi .V'l'q." V " "
Ilisf." « ..... 14 v
" --v.Dasc5bgm3,ai1alIi Prakash,
Sj=:3:'Tl;ip}{.§eéwamy,
A V .23'i_3rc9'a1s,
0655;: Aagficultufist,
R,'VoA.'1~Ka1*ikal1u Hosahalli,
" : Kutiligi Tq.
x Bellaxy Dist.
Parashumma s/0 Thippeswamy,
Age: 24 years,
Occ: Agzriclilturist,
R/0. Karikallu Hosahalli,
3,3?»
Xudlig Tq.
Bcllary Dist.
5. Giddaparaaappaza Kariyappa,
S/0 Siddappa,
Age: 35 years,
00¢: Agriculturist, _
R/0. Karikallu Hosahalii, _V
Kudligi Tq. Bcllary Dist. ..
(By Sri.G.N. ._ vani,"Adirs.)
AND:
The State, ._ _ _ _
Rcpterl. By the i_as'ps;¢;or'n,,V '_ "
1<uc11igi'T.aTfi:1<,VL,5»i'., H .
Beflaryv-Bisfiiet. * ' ' ' .. RESPONDENT
11/3 439 Cr.P.C. praying to release:
tht: 110' 5 on conditional bail and etc.
V. :Vh1:k=:_f£:itioI1syH;:<::111i11g on for orders this day, the court
' mV.'aée_ t11,¢'fQ}3.ofiring common. order:
ORDER
” ..’1’if3t3 fiflefitisnem in bath these: petitions are accused roped
V. iogefilea: to face charge for offences punishable u/s 143, 147,
‘::43’, 3o2 r/W sezction 149 ofIPC and section 1203 <:vfIF'C.
Cr}.P.'?626/2009 is by the accused 1105.1 ta 4 While
C.r1.P.7663/2009 is by accused nosfu and 6.
W
4
2. The State has opposed grant of baii and has filed 3.
defaileé counter.
3. The facts as manifesting from
Woukl reveal that Kubcrappa was mgidergt of ” ” V
along with his family members. ‘i_3;_:f:«
adjacent land is owned by t11eV3::}eEitio11V1:i Nagappa gave a statement before the police that
£I:ie..g1a}r following 14.11.2008 the accused 11%.} to 4 as also
bfictitioners in (Itr.P.’7663/2% viz. Paxasappa and
j “l\?Iéihjunath had approached him ooufcssing to have committed
V the muntier of Kuberappa and sought his help to save
8. At this juncture, it is seen pmsecufiefi “its
possession sumcient material regarding z;1efi*1e VV
1103.1 to 4 to do away with the fife’eif Ki3’b’81’T£i}§)§39;,V”:i5§*_h;{:) ‘aAppears’ j
to have disturbed ma1:ri1nonia1 «1§f»é;–_V_ X5; 1 ‘~ ..1’=$ ”
Mahalingappa by ‘3ij’heze”i¥.§
also allegation of sevemlv.dispufieyhefwecn,’ {hem .regarding the
land. The statement seen the accused
along with decreased indicting
accused ” ” V’
‘.Bu_t esé aeeueed 303.5 and 6 are concerned, no
motive “is mind except for the last seen,
tsogeiher cficzjgasfanee egainst them in the aiieged extra»
‘V ” ..§1itiici:éfi” et;3:;fessioii”.'” Pemsal of extra-judicial confessions
Nagappa has nasrrated what was told to him
fwerd of it is referable tn accused 130.: but it is not
Acle-ax.’ ‘£0 Whether accused 1103.5 and 6 have made extra»
1, a . H filégcial confession. ‘Therefore, ccmsidering these
__?<:ircumstanees, it could be said that the material available for
prosecution reasonably fives an imrlieation of accused 1103.1 to
&j}//
s
4 rcsponsibic for the crime. As far as accused 5 and 6 are
cancemed, matcnlal is not so convincing.
9. Hence, without expressing ft11’tI1t:r.c3pi3;g§:)VIV_:1′-.§1:V_ the
merits of the casc, E 3:11 persuaded 1:0 accep€_:«HthéV.’ bf
petitioners (accused nosfi and 6) in Cr1.P–.
disinclmed to accept the plea of T ‘
CrLP.7626/2009. mace, the,£o13pwizig:_ “-
ORI’5E-=11″ V
in the is
admitting Parasappa @
Hasim”:1ra« ~ Manjunath @ Hasimuragi
_ Ma1;j:;z;:%pa, ms and 6 to bail, subject to foilowigag
ice-.n_iiitioizfS:_
V iibetitiioxzers shall execute a bond in a sum of
V ~ }é:si:25,o0cs;~ with two sureties for the like sum to
V L the; satisfaction ef ma} court;
V’ f’ii. They shali appear before tax: SEQ/Investigation
Ofiiccr in»-chargc of izuvcstigafion and mark their
attendance {met in two weeks on Sunday bctvozreen
9 am. and ‘? pm. until filing ofchargc sheet
W
iii. They shall not tamper pmsecuti<}:i–«
prevail upon witnesses m_3:ii£1ér{_' .
Sub*
IO'
JRJ: CRLP NO.7626/2009
14.8.2009
ORDER ON 'BEING SPOKEN TO'
Crl.P i\los.7663/09 and 7626/09 are
who are facing charge together in (:'.riir1'e' it
file of respondent ~ police and had ithis"Ciou.rt..
bail. Both the petitions were posted on Boa.rd".on~.li'.l82009"V 0
and at bar two advocates that they'a.re..p§resenting
in the case. Accordinglg/0 together as the
petitioners in these in the same
crime disposed of by
order d.-t.–~]
A 1rie_nl1o_ on"'_.»13i.8.2009 requesting to post these
pe,ti§tion's for spoken to. Today learned counsel Smt.
. appears and submits that she was representing in
and she was not present on 11.8.2009,
when "matter was heard. Her contention is that since she
nh,a__s notibeen heard and as she has ground to urge to show
"g_it}'iat there is no prima facie case made out against the
—–[petitioners (in this petition). The order dated 11.8.2009 be
an
,H’
recalled and she be heard. Learned counsel Sri
Narasammnavar who had appeared on 11.8.2009 :is”‘.also
present today.
First of all the submission that counsel.-A4’appeariir1g V’
Crl.P. No.7626/O9 has not been he.ard.._has.’_toiiloedisicoilinted K”
with displeasure, as it is seen fr’orn3’_ithe
Narasammanavar, the defen£:e’*~._ counsel the’-it
matter. He is one of the Advo.cate.S’on recordig’A’Iflfferefore, I
am unable to accept tlfiisipeointe?ntior1–i;that.,”The petitioners’
counsel has notvbeen learned counsel
Smt. havti appeared, but the lawyer who
appeared undioubtedlyiiirepresented the petitioners.
V.l_3esidie’s V_F’ro\f.i-sionsi”iinder Sec.362 of the Cr.P.C. is a
‘ii”~v.Acle’é1.Ii’i’ bar ».for reVie’wing or recalling the order passed
petition finally. The Apex Court has clearly
disproved.ithespractice of review of orders passed in criminal
proceedings for one or the other reason. Clear mandate
A ernerges from the dictum. of the Apex court in the case of
sf” §§ur””:’
STATE OF ORISSA Vs. RAM CI-IANDER AGARWALA reported
in 1979 SC 87 that whatsoever may be the merit s11jp’;5o’rtii1g
the said ground, there is no legal perrrlissibilityiof ‘
or reviewing any order by whicihr the erirriinal ‘appeal-,_ it
revision or petition has been finally, disposedhof:
View has been reiterated by the Apex Court eveij:lre[r:’en.t1y..3and . ”
as the bar under Sec.362 Cr.P.§’;”.lope.rates.’ question of
reviewing the said order not arise.
Lastly, it: ‘mat the proceedings
in question provisions of 439 of
Cr.P.C. _obviously been disposed of.
There isvvnorbar to apply fresh seeking bail, if
the circtlrnstaneess .p.errn.it. Therefore, in no way petitioners
have been deprived of any right.
“the’se’lobs_eif;ation request for recalling the order is
r6jQé:fl,£§§\1/ ‘ l ”
sd/—
]UDGEt