IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17’ DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITON No.10178/2011 BETWEEN: I-Iulgappa, S/o. Durgappa @ Duggappa Muggol @ Mugol, Aged about 22 years, 0cc: Coolie, Rio. Alamatti Marimatti, Tq. Basavana—Bagewadi, Dist. Bijapur. . . . Petitioner (By Shri. Shivakurnar S. Badawadgi, Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka, Through Hungund Police Station, By S.P.P. High Court Building, Dharwad. .. .Respondent (By Shri. Anand Kumar Navalgimath, Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking that the petitioner be released on bail in Crime No.137/2010 of Hungund Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: One Sornanath, son of Duggappa Shankad, had alleged that, he along with others, had attended the marriage of their relative, Bhimappa and in this regard they visited Hire Singanagutti village. At that point of time there was a petty quarrel between the brother of the petitioner, one Gangaram and Bhimappa. They had assaulted each other on account of earlier enmity between them, at that point of time one Sadashiv, son of Durgappa Muggol, had intervened and abused the brother of the petitioner and made him to stop quarrelling. The said Gangaram telephoned the petitioner and informed him about the incident, and the fact that Sadashiv had abused him. This had enraged the petitioner, who had proceeded immediately in his auto and stopped the vehicle in which Sadashiv was travelling. After calling him out of the vehicle and assaulted all over his body, as 3 a result of which Sadashiv collapsed and later had succumbed to the injuries. It is in this background, that the Police had registered a case in C.C.No.137/20l0, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 11.122010. The petitioner had thereafter moved the Sessions Court for bail, the same has been rejected, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the death of Sadashiv was purely accidental. The intention of the petitioner was never to commit murder. It would have been possibly to hold that there was premeditation and intention to commit murder, ifthe accused had been armed with any deadly weapons. Since the accusations are that he had assaulted the deceased with bare hands would indicate that the severity of the attack was not with an intention to commit murder. The deceased having died, possibly as a result of his frail health and old age could not be construed as murder. It is further contended that at the time of the death of the deceased, he was travelling along with his wife. In the face of the S 4 circumstance, that she has not come forward to make any statement or to lodge a complaint against the accused, petitioner herein, it would further fortified that there was no serious intention on the part of the petitioner to cause greater harm than to merely assault the deceased, out of anger and in a fit of passion. 4. Therefore, the learned counsel would seek that the petitioner’s case be considered sympathetically and he be enlarged on bail. 5. In the face of the statement of objections filed by the learned Government Pleader to indicate that there are a number of eyewitnesses to the incident and the deceased having died within 1 V2 hours form the time of the incident. The death can be directly related to the assault. The mere fact that the petitioner was unarmed and was not carrying any deadly weapons, is besides the point. The intention of the petitioner not to commit the murder of the deceased is wishful thinking. Since the admitted circumstance is that the petitioner had travelled quite a distance to cause harm to the deceased and therefore, it cannot be said that there was no intention to commit murder. Hence, there is no case made out. The petition is rejected. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture intervenes and submits that the observations made by this Court would seriously prejudice the petitioner’s claim to be enlarged on bail, after the charge sheet is filed. 7. It is made clear that any observations made herein are prima facie and do not prejudice the case of the petitioner, if any changed circumstances can be made out, after filing of the charge sheet. Sd/ JUDGE Rsh