SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 51509

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102642 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

SHRI SADASHIV S/O. ANNAPPA NAVI,

AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: BARBER,

R/O. ASANGI, TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,

DIST: BAGALKOTE, PIN CODE-587311.

&PETITIONER

(BY SHRI SANJAY S. KATAGERI., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

THROUGH BANAHATTI POLICE STATION,

(BANAHATTI CIRCLE), BAGALKOTE,

R/BY ADDL. S.P.P.,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH,

DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580011.

&RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI PRASHANTH V.MOGALI., HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

439

OF

CR.P.C.,

SEEKING

TO

ENLARGE

THE

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

ON

REGULAR

BAIL

IN

CRIME

NO.50/2022 OF BANAHATTI POLICE STATION REGISTERED

FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 OF

IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

- 2 -

CRL.P No. 102642 of 2022

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

This petition is filed by sole accused under

Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (hereinafter referred to as 8Cr.P.C.9, for

brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.50/2022 of

Banahatti Police Station registered for the offences

punishable under Section 302 of The Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 8IPC9, for

brevity) pending in Sessions Case No.5046/2022

on the file of learned I-Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Bagalkote sitting at Jamakhandi.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that, on

26.05.2022

at

about

2:00

p.m,

when

the

petitioner/accused was working as haircutter in the

Hair Cutting Salon by name <Prajwal Gents Parlor=,

at that time, the deceased Sagar Sinappa Awati

- 3 -

came along with his friends and started teasing the

petitioner by stating that, he has not done proper

hair cutting on the previous day and as such, he

will not make any payment for the colour hair dye

and he has to do it free of cost. It is further stated

that the deceased used to tease the petitioner in

the said fashion even on earlier occasion. At that

time, the petitioner has stated that he will teach a

lesson to the deceased. It is further stated that

the deceased and his friends were sitting in the

said hair cutting shop on 26.05.2022 and the

deceased teased once again in the said fashion.

The

deceased

has

stated

to

have

told

the

petitioner to apply the hair dye colour and for the

same, the deceased has told that he will not pay

the amount for the same since he had not done

hair cutting properly on the earlier occasion. For

this, the petitioner told him to pay Rs.20/- for hair

dye colour and the deceased told that he will not

- 4 -

pay any extra amount and it should be done in the

amount already paid on the previous occasion. For

the said statement, the petitioner got angry and

with an intention to kill the deceased Sagar took

the scissor kept on the table at the said shop and

assaulted him with scissor on his right hand and

chest and the said Sagar has sustained grievous

injury and he was taken to Banahatti Government

Hospital and when he was taking to Jamakhandi

Government hospital, the deceased succumbed to

the said injuries on the way. The mother of the

victim come and filed complaint and the same

came to be registered in Crime No.50/2022 of

Banahatti Police Station against this petitioner for

the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

The petitioner/accused came to be arrested on

27.05.2022 and he is in judicial custody. The

petitioner/accused

filed

bail

application

in

S.C.No.5043/2022 seeking bail and the same came

- 5 -

to be rejected by learned I-Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Bagalakote, sitting at Jamakhandi

by

order

dated

26.08.2022.

Therefore,

the

petitioner/accused is before this Court seeking

bail.

3.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel

appearing for petitioner and learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent/State.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that, as the deceased used to tease the

petitioner

on

each

and

every

occasion,

the

petitioner under the heat of anger took the scissor

kept in the salon and assaulted with it on the chest

of the deceased. The deceased succumbed to the

said injury while on the way to hospital. It is his

further submission that the said alleged incident

has taken place in a sudden and grave provocation

- 6 -

attracting offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.

It is his further submission that the petitioner is

aged 19 years and as the charge-sheet is filed, he

is not required for custodial interrogation. With

this, he prayed to allow the petition.

5.

Per

contra,

learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader

would

contend

that,

the

offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous

offence punishable with death or imprisonment for

life. There is a quarrel between the petitioner and

the accused at the time of incident and the

petitioner with an intention to kill the deceased

took the scissor and assaulted with it on the chest

and caused i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top