Ramanna @ Ramesh Hutagi vs The State of Karnataka

Jawad Rahim

Accused No. 4 who is in judicial custody facing charge for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 302, 201, 109 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act along with 17 others, seeks bail. Heard both sides.

The prosecution case reveals:

On 21.01.2012, one Manjunath Fakeerappa Mallappanavar of Karadikoppa, Hubli Taluk, lodged a report at S.H.O, Rural Police Station, Hubli, reporting that, his uncle Shivappa, who was a member and Chairman of the Gram ''Panchayat, had contested the recent Zilla Panchayat Election. He had allegiance to the Congress Party, consequent to which BJP party workers were opposed to him. Thus, there was enmity in the group of persons of that party.

On 21.01.2012 at 8.00 p.m., the complainant after having his dinner, proceeded carrying food for the workers who were harvesting the sugar cane crop. On the way, he saw his uncle Shivappa sitting on the platform along with other villagers chatting. He spoke to him. In the. meanwhile, there was disruption of electrical supply and there was totally dark. With the help of a torch, which he carried, he looked the platform-and sat with his uncle. Soon thereafter, a Maruti Van with unnumbered plate reached the spot and one of the occupants opened fire at Shivappa. Shivappa screamed in pain. The complainant flashed the torch light at the vehicle and saw a red colour Maruti Van and there were six occupants in the van. He and others chased the vehicle and the occupants, but it was of no avail. They made good of their escape.

In the report, he did not mention any offenders'' name, but mentioned about the incident, which occurred few days ago. In the said incident, a few persons namely, Ramappa Huttagi, Basavaraj Amavashi, Malleshappa Siddlingannavar, Fakirappa K. Kudadhareppanavar, Lakshman Hubli, Kashimsab Ganjigatti had visited the house of Harshachandragouda. They were seen by Gurusiddappa Siddalingannavar and Manjunath Hiremath. On their information, the complainant suspected their involvement in the crime in question. On the basis of that clue, the 1st accused - Laxman was arrested and on interrogation, he gave voluntary statement, revealing political rivalry between accused No. 10 - Rohit and the victim Shivappa He revealed that a plan was hatched to kill him and in furtherance of that: conspiracy, he has fired at Shivappa. That became the basis for further investigation and the investigating officer has roped in actually 21 persons as offenders. One amongst them is the petitioner herein.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that no overt act is attributed to the petitioner and even if it is believed that the incident occurred in the manner stated by the complainant, only one has fired at the victim and the others were in the car. Since, no role is attributed to any of the offenders, the petitioner has to be presumed as innocent.

The second ground is the complainant mentions six persons in the Maruti van, whereas the investigating officer has indicted sixteen. The last ground is that in the final report filed, the ranking of the accused has been changed by the investigating officer bringing the petitioner as Accused No. 4. Therefore, he submits that the material so far collected by the prosecution is not sufficient to support the charge for offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to benefit.

The learned Additional SPP, Sri. V.M. Banakar, submits that even if, in the complaint there is no contribution of overt acts to the petitioner, even then he will not be entitled to bail as the prosecution has roped all of them with the aid of Section 120B of I.P.C. He would submit that the conduct of the petitioner in being with the main assailant speaks of his connivance. From what I have recorded in the para supra, it is evident that, initially, the complainant lodged a report in which he mentioned that one person out of six who have traveled in the Maruti Van had fired. He did not mention the names of any of the accused but on the basis of the clue furnished by him, the Accused No. 1/Laxman was arrested. The petitioner''s implication is based on his voluntary statement, besides political rivalry is said to be the cause. No doubt, a person by name Shivappa has succumbed to injuries raising the charge u/s 302 of the I.P.C., on considering the fact that except for Accused No. 1, as there is no overt act is attributed to the said accused, the bail was granted to the accused Nos. 4, 5, 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21. The petitioner stands at par with them and therefore, no further discussion would be required, as I have considered these facts while admitting them to bail.

Hence the order.

ORDER

The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court or the Court of Sessions, as the case may be.

ii. The Petitioner is further directed to appear before the S.H.O or Investigating Officer in-charge of Crime No. 17/2012 once in two weeks on Saturdays between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm till charge is framed.

iii. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution material or prevail upon witnesses by any means.

iv. The petitioner shall not leave the Sessions jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.