In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore Dated This the 23Rd Day of June, 2014 Before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Budihal R.B. Cr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF JUNE, 2014

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3371 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

1. MUTTURAJU S/O.GUDI GOWDA TIMMAYYA AGED 32 YEARS R/AT.SURAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA LECTURER IN PART TIME AT VANI SAKKARE GOVT. FIRST GRADE COLLEGE HIRIYURU TOWN, CHITRADURGA DIST PIN – 577 599.

2. PARASHURAMA.Y S/O.MALLAPPA AGED 35 YEARS BALIGONDU AURI COLLEGE IN HOSADURGA TOWN R/O.KALLESHWARA EXTENSION HOSADURGA TOWN R/AT.SURAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA PIN – 577 599.

3. CHANDRASHEKAR.T S/O.P.H.THIMMAIAH AGED 32 YEARS COUNCILOR R/AT.3 RD CROSS, LAXMANNA EXTENSION HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN – 577 599.

4. SANNATHIMMA BHOVI & REDDY S/O.M.D.THIMMA BHOVI AGED 38 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT.OPPOSITE TO TULASI KALYANA MANTAPA, HIRIYUR TOWN PERMANENT R/O.SURAGONDANAHALLY VILLAGE, HIRIYURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN- 577 599. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.PRASHANTH.P.N., ADV.,)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HIRIYURU RURAL POLICE STATION CHITRADURGA (D) REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 001. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.B.J.ESWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.117/14 OF HIRIYUR RURAL P.S., CHITRADURGA, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 506, 307, 302 R/W.SEC.149 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

This is the petition filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.6, 7, 9 and 10 under Section

438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent – police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 506, 307 and

302 r/w.Section 149 of IPC registered by the respondent – police in Crime No.117/2014.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners – accused Nos.6, 7,

9 and 10 and also learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent-State.

3. Looking to the averments made in the complaint, complainant has alleged that he is the resident of Suragondanahally village and after completion of his TCH, he is working as a part time lecturer. He and deceased Mahesh were doing social works and this has been disliked by

Krishnamurthy.M- accused No.1 and other accused persons and that they used to have frequent

altercations between two groups which led to filing of a complaint by one Parashurama.Y – petitioner No.2 herein against deceased - Mahesh, injured complainant and his other relatives which is registered in

Crime No.305/2013 for the offence under Section 307 along with other offences. It is also the further allegation in the complaint that when the complainant and deceased – Mahesh were proceeding on the motor cycle to reach Hiriyuru and on reaching Metigurki village, on nearing road humps, motor cycle was slowed down and all the accused persons attacked them with lethal weapons and fearing life, deceased Mahesh and injured complainant ran to the house of Honnursab, but accused followed and entered the house of

Honnursab and locked the door. The accused Ramesh assaulted Mahesh on his right leg, Prasanna also assaulted deceased, due to injuries, Mahesh fell on the floor and remaining all the accused persons assaulted deceased Mahesh with their hands and weapons and ultimately, Mahesh expired because of the injuries.

4. The complainant himself is the injured and the

Investigating materials goes to show that he sustained injuries and in his submission he has clearly stated that he has seen all the accused persons by forming unlawful assembly holding the deadly weapons in the hand caused injury to him, as well as the deceased – Mahesh. Looking to the opinion of the doctor, the doctor has opined in the post mortem report that death is because of shock and hemorrhage, as a result of which injuries sustained. During the investigation, Investigating Officer has also seized the weapons under the voluntary statement of accused persons. Therefore, when the complainant himself is the eye witness, who also sustained injuries in the said incident, it prima-facie goes to show the involvement of the petitioners along with other accused persons has committed the alleged offences. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have committed the offences which are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, it is not a fit case to

exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners.

Accordingly, petition is rejected.

Sd/- JUDGE

VMB