1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION No.201471/2021

BETWEEN:

SANGAPPA S/O GURUBASU YAMDE

AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O UMARANI, TQ: CHADCHAN

DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586101

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI SANJAY A PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH POLICE

VIJAYAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION

DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101

REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH-585107

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI GURURAJ V HASILKAR, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439

OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE

PETITION THERE BY ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN

C.C.NO.629/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV JMFC COURT,

2

VIJAYAPURA CHARGE SHEET FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE

UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 109, 120(B), 212, 324, 326,

307, 302 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 5, 7 R/W 25 (1) (A), (1-

B), (A) (6)(7) OF INDIAN ARMS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019,

ARISING

OUT

OF CRIME NO.301/2020 REGISTERED BY

VIJAYAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION, DIST: VIJAYAPURA AS

PER CHARGE SHEET.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.,

seeking

to

enlarge

the

petitioner

on

bail

in

C.C.No.629/2021 registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 109, 120(B), 212, 324,

326, 307, 302 read with 149 of IPC and Section 3, 5, 7

read with sections 25(1)(a), (1-B)(a) (6) (7) of Indian

Arms Amendment Act, 2019 arising out of Crime No.

301/2020 of Vijayapura Police Station.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the

State.

3

3.

The factual matrix of the case is that this

petitioner and other accused persons all of them have

conspired each other to take away the life of the injured

and by forming an unlawful assembly consequent upon the

conspiracy made to attack on the injured with deadly

weapons, when the bodyguards tried to rescue the injured,

the accused persons had fired on them, as a result, two

bodyguards were succumbed to the injuries. However, the

injured is out of danger and police after investigation have

filed the charge sheet against all the accused persons

invoking sections for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 109, 120(B), 212, 324, 326, 307,

302 read with 149 of IPC and Section 3, 5, 7 read with

sections 25(1)(a), (1-B)(a) (6) (7) of Indian Arms

(Amendment) Act, 2019.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

vehemently contend that only allegation made against this

petitioner is that he gave the information to the accused

persons with regard to the movement of the injured

4

Mahadev Sahukar. He would further submit that only

section 109 of IPC attracts against this petitioner and no

overt act allegation is made on this petitioner and he was

not present at the spot when the incident has taken place.

He would further submit that he has been in custody since

one year and no material is found against this petitioner

that he has conspired with the other accused persons in

eliminating two persons and also in inflicting injury to the

injured.

5.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for the State would submit that this petitioner

though he has not participated in taking away the life but

he was the part of the conspiracy who gave information

over the phone stating that the injured has left the place

and on that information only, the other accused persons

inflicted the injury and as a result of the attack, two

persons have lost their lives and it is a case of double

murder and hence, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion

in favor of the petitioner. He would further submit that the

5

bail petition of accused No.33 was also rejected and the

allegation against this petitioner and also accused No.33 is

similar that both o