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

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

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top