: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 21 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11440/2013

BETWEEN:

1. BABALAL S/O. ABDULSAAB AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE R/O. 92/6, FALLS, TQ: GOKAK, DIST:

2. ASHOK S/O. LAXMAN KUMARNAIK AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST COOLIE R/O. WARD NO. 16, , TQ: GOKAK DIST: BELGAUM

3. KEMPANNA S/O. BASAVANNI PACHAPUR AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVICE, R/O. MANIKWADI, TQ: GOKAK DIST: BELGAUM

4. MOHAMMAD ALI @ HANIF S/O. ABDULSAB PACHAPUR AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. 72/2, 2ND CROSS, GOKAK FALLS, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM

5. SHRIDHAR S/O., DURGAPPA YALLAVAGOL AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. 5 TH CROSS, GOKAK FALLS : 2 :

TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM

6. BABULAL @ ASHFAK S/O. ABDUL RAZAK BARAGIR AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. 2ND CROSS, GOKAK FALLS, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM

7. NASHIR S/O. ISMAIL DESAI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. 31/2, 2ND CROSS, GOKAK FALLS, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM

8. DEVANAND S/O. SHANKAR MANE AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. 4TH CROSS, GOKAK FALLS TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM

9. MUNNA @ RIYAZAHMED S/O. MADARSAB MULLA AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. 72/2, 2ND CROSS, GOKAK FALLS, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM ... PETITIONERS (By Sri. BAHUBALI A DANAWADE ADV.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SPP DHARWAD THROUGH GOKAK RURAL POLICE STATION, REPTD. BY ITS HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DHARWAD ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.V.M.BANAKAR, ASPP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS IN S.C.NO.44/2013 OF GOKAK RURAL P.S. IN CRIME : 3 :

NO.116/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 302, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC.

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

O R D E R

Petitioners are together roped for principal charge punishable under Section 302 of the IPC in the matter relating to the death of Allahbaksh

Mangsule on 15.08.2012. Petitioners are in

judicial custody after arrest in Crime No.116/2012, they seek bail.

2. State has filed detailed counter.

3. From what learned counsel on both sides have adverted to, it is seen that Riyana wife of victim Allahbaksh lodged a report alleging that petitioners having formed unlawful assembly with an intention to kill Allahbaksh and in furtherance of that common object, one of the petitioner indulged in the act of causing injuries to the : 4 :

person of Allahbaksh, consequent to which he died.

4. From the complaint, it could be seen she has attributed overt-acts to each of the petitioners herein, while making a serious allegation against accused No.1 that he dropped a stone on the head of victim which killed Allahbaksh.

5. The petitioners’ counsel would submit that petitioners are innocent and they have not indulged in any act of violence. He submitted that the overt-act of killing the victim is attributed to

Accused No.1 by name Maruti Mukagol, while petitioners are not responsible for the killing. He would submit that statement recorded during the investigation itself would show that petitioners have not indulged in any act to cause any fatal injuries and therefore, the charge against them under Section 302 of the IPC is not sustainable.

Besides, he would also submit that from one year : 5 :

they are in judicial custody, as a result of which not only them but also their family members are suffering.

6. The State has filed a detailed counter to the bail application wherein the details of the incident are narrated. It can be seen that the incident has occurred in Manikavadi village, due to quarrel between two factions about the pasting of poster of Bhimshi Jarkiholi on the eve of Ramzan festival. Petitioners and others are alleged to have objected to pasting of such posters, as a result of which quarrel ensued and on 15.08.2012,

Allahbaksh along with his associates went to

Manikwadi village at 6.00 p.m. to affix the posters. At that time, again the petitioners and others objected and that lead to serious altercation and ultimately, on the date of incident, they caused his death. : 6 :

7. According to the prosecution, petitioner

No.1 who is ranked as accused No.3, petitioner

No.4 ranked as accused No.6, petitioner No.5 ranked as accused No.7, petitioner No.6 ranked as accused No.8, petitioner No.7 ranked as accused

No.9, petitioner No.8 ranked as accused No.10, petitioner No.9 ranked as accused No.11 assaulted the victim with stones while petitioner No.2 ranked as accused No.4 assaulted the victim with rafter.

Accused No.1 is said to have caused injury to the head of the victim with stone, which accounted for his death. Therefore, there is a detailed narration of facts spilling out overt-acts of each of the petitioners at the time when the group assaulted the victim. Thus, it is clear that petitioners were amongst the members of unlawful assembly and object of which to kill the victim.

8. In the circumstances, I do not find merit in the petition to grant them bail. Accordingly, : 7 :

petition is rejected . However, the trial court shall expedite the trial as petitioners are in judicial custody.

Sd/- JUDGE RK/-