1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200850/2017

BETWEEN:

Suresh @ Suryakanth S/o Amresh Biradar, Age: 31 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Narayanpur, Tq. Aurad (B), Dist. -585259. ... Petitioner (By Sri.Syed Mastan, Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka, Through Aurad (B) Police Station, Dist. Bidar-585259. (Representing by learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karntaka bench at Kalaburagi) ... Respondent (By Sri. P.S.Patil, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE THE ACCUSED / PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.82/2017 OF AURAD P.S. DIST. BIDAR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC. 2

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2. The incident happened on 21.05.2017, at

Narayanpur, Tq. Aurad (B) at about 11.00 AM as per the complaint lodged in Crime No.82/2017. It is lodged by one Padmavati, age 50 years wife of Kamshetty Biradar of Narayanpur. It is stated that her husband Kamshetty was one among 7 brothers, the other 6 brothers

Amresh, Veershetty, Basawaraj, Hanamantraya,

Subhash and Aravind were the his brothers. The ancestral property to the extent of 6 acres in Sy.No.35,

12 acres in Sy.No.47 of Narayanpur village was owned by her family wherein each of the brothers had a share in it. The partition was effected about 20 years back, but the revenue entries were not mutated and in this connection there has been altercation and differences.

For the past 10 days previous to the date of lodging the 3

complaint, the differences increased more particularly the anger of her husband brother.

3. The Panchayaths held in this connection were of no help.

4. In this connection Amresh, the brother of

Kamshetty was having anger on the family.

5. Amresh and his children Revanappa and

Suresh had threatened to do away with the life of

Kamshetty and thereby, they would enjoy the lands.

On 21.05.2017, Kamshetty had gone to land in

Sy.No.16 that had fallen into his share. The complainant her son Rajanikanth went to the land carrying lunch to Kamshetty and Amresh the brother of her husband was being attacked and hit by Amresh and his son with Zambya machu and when the complainant and her son arrived they followed on sighting them . Her 4

son Rajanikanth telephoned Neharu and they took his father to hospital, but the doctor who tested declared that the Kamshetty brought dead.

6. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there were differences and quarrels in respect of the ancestral property and its sharing among the brothers. In this connection altercation were harassing from based earlier to the incident and the aggravation of the differences 10 days earlier to the extent.

7. The land dispute is said to be reason for attack.

8. The allegation is Amaresh kicked on the testicles of Kamashetty and the sons also hit

Kamashetty with fist. 5

9. The petition is filed before this court and previous one is filed before District & Sessions Judge,

Bidar in Criminal Misc. No.356/2017 by Amresh and

Suresh came to be dismissed and the present petition is filed by Suresh @ Suryakanth S/o Amresh Biradar. The petitioner has been in judicial custody. Considering the context and the circumstances, the land dispute and enmity, I am of the sincere view that in case the petitioner Suresh is enlarge on bail no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution. However apprehension of the prosecution could be resolved by imposing suitable conditions.

Hence the; ORDER

Bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Conditions

1. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties 6

possessing immovable property for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

2. The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

3. He shall not leave the without permission of the Committal Court until further orders / till Committal proceedings are made.

Sd/- JUDGE SMP