Mudakappa vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J

This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set aside the order dated 07.02.2025 passed in S.C.(AC)No.51/2024 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal wherein bail petition of appellant –accused sought in respect of Crime No.121/2024 of Yelburga Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 352, 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS” for brevity) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “SC and ST Act” for brevity) came to be rejected.

Heard learned counsel for appellant –accused, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 –State.

The case of the prosecution as narrated in Cl.No.17 of the charge sheet is that;

On 17.08.2025 at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased - Yamanoorswamy went to the saloon of the accused for hair cut and asked him to cut his hairs and at that time accused asked him whether he has brought money and told him to bring the money. At that time, quarrel taken place between the accused and deceased and there was scissor in the hand of the accused. It is seen by C.W.4 who was in the shop of the accused and he out of fear he went out and thereafter accused assaulted the deceased on his stomach from the scissor and it has been seen by C.W.19. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to hospital and wherein he is reported as dead. The appellant came to be arrested on 18.08.2024 has filed bail petition and same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant –accused would contend that the incident has taken place in sudden quarrel and there was no intention or preparation. The name of C.W.19 who is eye witnesses has not been mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, he is hearsay witness. The accused assaulted the deceased with scissor. The said scissor kept in the shop of accused has been seized under mahazar and it does not amount to any recovery. He further submits that the scissor seized form accused shop does not contain any blood stain as per FSL report. As charge sheet is filed, this appellant –accused is not required for custodial interrogation. Without considering all these aspects, learned Special Judge has rejected bail petition of this appellant –accused which requires interference by this Court. With these, he prays to allow appeal and grant bail to the appellant –accused.

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 –State wound contend that in quarrel between accused and deceased, the appellant –accused took scissor and stabbed on the stomach of the deceased and in the result, the deceased died in the hospital. The said scissor has been seized from the shop of the accused. C.W.19 is eye witness who has seen the accused stabbing the deceased on his stomach. Charge sheet materials show prima facie case against the appellant –accused for offences alleged against him. With this, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that on perusal of the charge sheet there is prima facie case against the appellant –accused for offences alleged against him. There are no grounds made out for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail. With these, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused the impugned order and charge sheet materials placed on record.

The incident has taken place in the shop of accused when the deceased went for hair cut. The said quarrel between the accused and deceased is with regard to hair cut of the deceased and money for the said hair cut. The incident has taken place in sudden quarrel between accused and deceased. The weapon (scissor) stated to have been seized which is kept in the shop of accused. Considering this aspect, there is no preparation and alleged incident has taken place in sudden quarrel. As charge sheet is filed, this appellant –accused is not required for custodial interrogation. The apprehension of the prosecution is that if the appellant –accused is granted bail, he will tamper prosecution witness can be met with by imposing stringent conditions. The appellant –accused has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail with conditions.

In the result, the following

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed.

ii. The impugned order dated 07.02.2025 passed in S.C.(AC)No.51/2024 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal is set aside.

iii. The appellant -accused is granted bail in Crime No.121/2024 of Yelburga Police Station subject to the following conditions:

a) The appellant -accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

b) The appellant -accused shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.

c) The appellant -accused shall appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.