AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 718 wordsRathnakala, J.—This petitioner (accused No. 2) along with two accused persons is charge sheeted in Crime No. 361/2013 of Kudachi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 302, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
A similar petition moved by him along with accused No. 1 in Crl. P. No. 100120/2014 was rejected and the accused No. 1 was enlarged on bail. However, he had moved another petition in Crl. P. No. 100966/2014, but withdrew the same with liberty to move a fresh bail petition.
The case of the prosecution is, the deceased had taken a bicycle from the accused No. 1 Bhimappa, but failed to return the same. On 09.12.2013 accused persons got furious over the issue and assaulted the deceased. During the incident the accused No. 1 used a rope, accused No. 2-petitioner herein used a club and accused No. 3 inflicted blows on the deceased: while assaulting the deceased was tied to a bullock cart: on the intervention of the third parties, petitioner retreated and the deceased was released from the bullock cart, but he died at the spot itself.
Sri M.H. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody from 11.12.2013. As per the post-mortem report the death is due to head injury connected with neurogenic shock. But, there is no corresponding external head injury on the dead body. Though there were marks on the interscapular region and on the limbs with some abrasions, the intracranial hemorrhage, which is found in the post mortem report will not corroborate with those injury marks. The reason for death of the deceased may be due to some other reason. The incident is alleged to have occurred at 9.00 a.m. After a long deliberation, complaint is lodged at 8''o clock in the evening. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The accused No. 1, who stands in the same footing is enlarged on bail by this Court. He is a family person and does not have any criminal background and there was no motive on his part to do away with the life of the deceased. He was not the owner of the vehicle and his complicity in the alleged incident is doubtful. Though the charge sheet is filed, it may take a considerable time for the trial to conclude. Under the circumstances, petition may be allowed.
Sri K.S. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition that there are no changed circumstances for him to move a second bail petition after his first bail petition was rejected. C.Ws. 1, 8 and 12 are the direct eye-witnesses, who have seen the petitioner indulging in assaulting the deceased with a club. The Doctor, who has examined the club and rope has given his clear opinion that the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report could have been caused by the club and rope. There is sufficient material to bring home the guilt of the accused under Section 302 of I.P.C., hence he is not entitled for bail. He cannot seek parity with accused Nos. 1 and 3, who stand on the different footing.
As such, though the bail petition in Crl. P. No. 100120/2014 was rejected, liberty was given to the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 100966/2014 to file fresh bail petition at a later stage and at appropriate time. The accused No. 1, who is enlarged on bail is none other than the elder brother of this petitioner. This Court has enlarged him on bail on opining that the fatal head injury is caused by this petitioner.
Without making any comment on the observation made by this Court in the said petition or the charge sheet materials, I hold that the prosecution case needs to pass through the test of full-fledged trial before coming to any conclusion about the cause of the death. Under the circumstances, there is no impediment to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
i) Petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No. 361/2013 of Kudachi Police Station on executing self bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with two sureties for the likesum.
ii) He shall attend the Court on all hearing dates.
iii) He shall not prevail upon the prosecution witnesses.
