1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201044/2022
BETWEEN:
1 . DODDA THIMMAPPA
S/O HANAMANTHU
AGE. 50 YRS,
2 . SANNA THIMMAPPA
S/O HANAMANTHU
AGE. 48 YRS,
3 . DODDA YANKANNA
S/O HANAMANTHU
AGE. 46 YRS,
4 . KRISHNA
S/O YANKANNA
AGE. 35 YRS,
5 . DOODA BHEEMANNA
S/O HANAMANTHU
AGE. 44 YRS,
6 . NAGENDRA
S/O NARASAYYA
AGE. 40 YRS,
7 . GOVINDA
S/O NARASAYYA
AGE. 38 YRS,
8 . NAGARAJ
S/O DODDA BHEEMANNA
AGE. 20 YRS,
ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND
R/O Y MALLAPUR VILLAGE,
2
TQ AND DIST RAICHUR -584128
...PETITIONERS
(By Sri: KADLOOR SATYANARAYANACHARYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:-
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SHO,
IDAPANUR POLICE STATION, RAICHUR,
(RPTD BY ADDL SPP KLB 585103)
……RESPONDENT
(By Sri:VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S. 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN
CRIME NO.34/2022 OF IDAPANUR PS, DISTRICT-RAICHUR FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324,
326, 354, 504, 506, R/W 149 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, RAICHUR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short hereinafter referred to
as
'Cr.P.C.')
seeking
to
enlarge
the
petitioners
on
anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime
No.34/2022 of Idanapur Police Station, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 323,
324, 326, 354, 504, 506, r/w 149 of IPC (for short
hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') pending before the I Addl.
Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Raichur.
3
2.
An FIR came to be lodged on the basis of the
complaint lodged by one Venkatalaxmi. It is alleged in the
complaint that on 12.06.2022 at 7.00 a.m., there was
quarrel between the first petitioner and her husband
regarding the right in the pathway to their land. The
husband of the complainant refused to give the pathway and
asked them to take pathway on the main road which is
besides their land and he told them to settle the matter in
the panchayat. When the husband of the complainant was
working in the land alongwith her husband, brother-in-law
and brother-in-law's wife at 11.00 a.m. on the same day, the
petitioners again came there and formed unlawful assembly
holding weapons such as sickle. Accused No.1 tried to
assault on the head of husband of the complainant and when
he tried to escape, the blow fell on his left knee and the
other
accused
assaulted
the
brother-in-law
of
the
complainant on his abdomen with their hands. When the
complainant screamed for help, the neighbouring land
owners came there and pacified the quarrel. Hence, a
complaint came to be lodged on the next day at about
7.00 a.m. on 13.06.2022. The bail petition filed by the
4
petitioners came to be rejected by the Sessions Judge,
Hence, this petition is filed.
3.
Heard
Shri.
Kadloor
Satyanarayanacharya,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Veeranagouda
Malipatil, learned HCGP for the respondent/State and
perused the material on record.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that
there is civil dispute between the complainant and the
accused regarding right of pathway to their land. Infact, the
complainant's husband and his brother assaulted the
petitioners
and
they
have
lodged
a
complaint
in
Cr.No.36/2022 in Idapanur police station and same is
received by the Court. Both FIRs are received by the Court at
the same time and on the same day. Learned counsel argued
that the injury said to have been caused by the husband of
the complainant is on the leg which is not on the vital part
and he has produced certificate to show that the injured was
discharged from the hospital on 28.06.2022. It is further
alleged that the alleged offences are not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life and in view of filing of the
5
complaint, police are trying to arrest them and they may be
put to humiliation and hardship as they are having family
and agricultural operations which would be affected, in case
if they are arrested. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.
5.
Against this, learned HCGP argued that there is
grevious injury to one of the injured. Investigation is still
going on and if the petitioners are released on bail, they may
abscond, they may not cooperate for investigation, they may
also repeat the offence and threaten the complainant and
witnesses. Therefore, learned HCGP argued that the bail
petition be rejected.
6.
I have perused the petition averments, FIR,
discharge summary, FIR filed by the wife of the first
petitioner against the husband of the complainant and
others.
7.
Admittedly, both the incidents are alleged to
have taken place in respect of right of pathway to the land.
It appears, both are neighbouring land owners and there
appears to be civil dispute in respect of right of pathway.
The injury sustained is not on any vital part of the body and
6
the injured is already discharged from the hospital. The
alleged
offences
are
not
punishable
with
death
or
imprisonment for life. The petitioners are having family and
they are agriculturists. The appreh