Hanumantharaju T.H vs State Of Karnataka

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the records.

This petitioner/accused No.1 has earlier approached this Court for grant of bail in CRL.P. No.5808/2019 and connected matters, this Court has rejected the said Criminal petition with a liberty to the petitioner to approach this court for grant of bail after filing of the charge sheet.

At that time, the entire charge sheet papers were not available to the court. Now, the charge sheet is available. The allegations made against the petitioner in the charge sheet is that on 8.7.2019 in the evening at about 4.00 p.m., in Bijawara village survey No.58/2B-1 in front of the shed of CW1, the accused have started quarreling with the deceased who is no other than the husband of the complainant and it is alleged that the Accused Nos.2 & 3 have assaulted CW-1 and accused No.1 has assaulted the deceased T.H. Manjanna, on his left shoulder and caused severe injuries. He died later in the hospital due to hemorrhage due to the injuries.

On careful perusal of the Post Mortem examination report, only one injury which was on the shoulder, is a grievous injury to the victim and due to hemorrhage the said death occurred. Subsequently, the statement of the complainant was recorded. He has earlier implicated the other accused persons apart from implicating this petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1. Thereafter, she has given statement that Accused Nos.2 & 3 have not actually abated the offence, but A1, who was holding a sickle in his hand assaulted the deceased. Though the said statement of the victim is consistent against this petitioner, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there was a quarrel between the two groups i.e., A1 to A3 on one side, complainant, her husband and others on the other side. Therefore, in that context after the galata, it appears Accused No.1 said to have assaulted on the left shoulder of the deceased which caused grievous injury. Now, the question is whether the accused has actually intended to do away with the life of the deceased or not. Further the left shoulder is not a vital part of the body. Therefore, whether it attracts the provision of Section 302 of IPC or 326 of IPC or Part-I of 304 of IPC has to be considered by the court during the course of full dressed trial. Though there are eye witnesses, considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case, even accepting the entire case of the prosecution, the above said aspect has to be thrashed out during the course of full dressed trial. The offences u/s.326 or 304 Part I & II of IPC are not compulsorily punishable with life imprisonment. There is no previous bad antecedent alleged against the petitioner. It appears, the incident happened after the quarrel between the two groups. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the accused has already been arrested and he has been in judicial custody and charge sheet has already been filed and as no custodial investigation is necessary and that the accused is ready and willing to abide by the conditions, that may be imposed by this court, in my opinion, it is a fit case where the court can enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the following :

Order

The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with CC No.59/2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM Court, Madhugiri, Tumkuru District (Arising out of Crime No.127/2019 of Madhugiri Police Station) registered for the alleged offences subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1 Lakh with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.