Ramesh Gowda vs State <BR> Mange Gowda, Rudresh Huchegowda, B.J. Manjegowda and Yogish Vs State

V. Jagannathan, J.—These two petitions arise out. of the same Cr. No. 138/2010 of Koppa police station and the offences alleged are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 r/w 149 of the IPC.

The case of the prosecution in short is that, the complaint was lodged by one Shobha, wife of deceased Paramesha on 14.8.10 stating that, at about 7 00 a.m., when her husband was coming on motorcycle near the dairy of their village, accused persons forming into an unlawful assembly, surrounded him and when she rushed to save her husband, she was pushed aside and A-3 Shankara chopped the left hand of the complainant''s husband Paramesha and the accused also assaulted her brother-in-law Chandra and caused him injuries.

Referring to the aforesaid complaint, learned Counsel Sri. Shankarappa for the Petitioner in Crl.P. No. 447/2011 argued that, the only overt act alleged against the Petitioners are that they were said to be members of the unlawful assembly and A-1 is said to have instigated the other accused persons, but however, it is A-3 who assaulted the deceased and therefore, the Petitioners be released on bail. Moreover, the incident is said to have occurred on 14.8.10 and death of Paramesha occurred on 18.8.10. Even the cause of death does not indicate that the death was due to fatal injuries sustained on the left hand. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner be released on bail.

Learned Counsel for the other Petitioner also adopted the very same argument of Sri. Shankarappa and sought for bail to the Petitioner in Crl.P. No. 271/2011 on similar grounds.

Learned Addl. S.P.P. for the Respondent State however argued that the Petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly and there are two rival groups in the village and number of cases are registered against the accused persons which is mentioned as 59 cases by the trial court and if bail is granted, the Petitioners may again involve themselves in like offences in future and may tamper with the evidence.

Having thus heard both sides and taking note of the complaint allegations note making any indication of any overt act against these Petitioners, but the main accused is said to have been A-3 who is said to have chopped the hands of deceased, as well as A-2 arid A-4, as far as these Petitioners are concerned, in my view, they may be released on bail by imposing conditions.

In the result, both the petitions are allowed subject to following conditions.

The Petitioners shall be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

They shall not hamper the investigation and shall not give threat to the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

They shall make their attendance before the jurisdictional police on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m.

They shall appear before the trial court on all the dates of hearing without fail.

They shall not involve in offences of like nature in future.