Karnataka High Court
Sri Danapal S/O Satteppa Asangi vs State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18577
CRL.P No. 103258 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103258 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI DANAPAL S/O SATTEPPA ASANGI
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HARUGERI, TAL: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M L VANTI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. V M SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PSI HARUGERI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD - 580 001.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI.RAMESH B CHIGARI, AGA)
NARAYANA
UMA
Location: THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF
HIGH COURT CR.P.C. (U/SEC. 483 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ALLOW THE
OF
KARNATAKA PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON
BAIL IN C.C. NO.1565/2024 (HARUGERI POLICE STATION
CRIME NO.47/2024), PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG, REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 109, 307, 329,
504, 506 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 25(1B)(a), 28 OF
INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
13.12.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18577
CRL.P No. 103258 of 2024
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)
1. Heard learned counsel Sri. M.L.Vanti for Sri
V.M.Sheelvant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Ramesh B. Chigari, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioner / accused No.1 in Crime No.47/2024 of
respondent-Police for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 109, 307, 329, 504,
506 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and
Sections 25(1B)(a) and 28 of Indian Arms Act is before
this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking for grant of bail.
Brief facts of the case:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that Narasappa Nemanna
Alagur filed a complaint stating that he is the resident of
Harugeri, Raibag Taluk. He had purchased land bearing
Sy.No.91 measuring 30 guntas situated at Badabrakuda
Village of Raibag Taluk, Belagavi District from Parisa
Bheemappa Asangi. The said land was being cultivated
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18577
CRL.P No. 103258 of 2024
by the complainant. The accused who are the relatives of
the complainant claimed that the land belongs to them
and they used to interfere with the possession of the
property. On 17.03.2024, the accused persons forcibly
entered into the land and tried to cultivate it. By that
time, the complainant interfered with the said cultivation
and it was stopped.
4. On 18.03.2024 at about 12.45 p.m., the complainant
along with his son Shantinath and his relatives were
cultivating the land with the help of the tractor.
Shantinath was taking care of the entire cultivation and
he was driving the tractor. The accused persons
trespassed into the land and started assaulting the
complainant and others. The petitioner herein was
instructed by other accused persons to stop the said
Shantinath. The petitioner took his revolver and fired
towards said Shantinath. The said Shantinath sustained
injuries. When the complainant and others started to run
away from the spot, the petitioner again tried to shot at
them, but they were not hurt. When the injured
Shantinath fell to the ground, all the accused ran away.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18577
CRL.P No. 103258 of 2024
The complainant and others took the injured to the
hospital for treatment. Thereafter, a complaint came to
be lodged before the Harugeri Police Station in Crime
No.47/2024 for the offences stated supra. After
investigation, the charge sheet was submitted.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner is aged about 58 years and
is an agriculturist. He is in judicial custody since
18.03.2024.
6. It is further submitted that the incident had taken place
at the spur of the moment and due to sudden
provocation. The petitioner had no intention either to
cause injury or commit any overt act. If the petitioner
had the intention to commit murder, he would have fired
on the vital parts of the body and the way in which the
petitioner fired the said Shantinath would indicate that he
had no such intention.
7. It is further submitted that a civil dispute existed between
the two families. Due to the said enmity, the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in this case. The other
accused who are similarly placed, have been enlarged on
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18577
CRL.P No. 103258 of 2024
bail. Therefore, he may also be enlarged on parity.
Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner prays to allow the petition.
8. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate
for the respondent - State vehemently opposed the said
submissions and he further submitted that this is the
second bail petition or successive bail petition and
contains no additional grounds or changed circumstances
to grant the bail.
9. It is further submitted that the overt act attributed
against the petitioner is that he is the person who fired on
the instruction of others. The weapon which he used to
commit the said offence would indicate that he had an
intention to commit the murder of Shantinath, however,
due to the intervention of the family members, he
survived. Since the petitioner had used a lethal weapon
like a revolver, he is not entitled for bail till the evidence
of material witnesses is over. Making such submissions,
the learned Additional Government Advocate prays to
dismiss the petition.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18577
CRL.P No. 103258 of 2024
10. After having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the averments of the charge
sheet, it appears from the record that in an earlier round
of approaching this Court for similar relief, this Court
rejected the bail petition on the ground that the evidence
of material witnesses are required to be completed or
otherwise, there may be a threat to the witnesses.
11. On perusal of the averments of the petition, the petitioner
has not made out any additional grounds or changed
circumstances to grant him bail. In fact, the observation
made by this Court at the earlier round of considering the
bail petition appears to be appropriate and this petition
does not contain any warranting circumstances to grant
bail. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
12. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
i) The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18577
CRL.P No. 103258 of 2024
ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to
approach the Court after the completion of
evidence of material witnesses.
It is needless to say that the Trial Court has to
expedite the trial by keeping in mind the rights and the
personal liberty of a person as envisaged under Article 21
of the Constitution of India.
Sd/-
(S.RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
Bss
List No.: 39 Sl No.: 2
[ad_1]
Source link