IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8425/20 10 BETWEEN: 1. Mahantesh Shivamurteppa Bileyali Aged 22 years, 0cc: Agriculture, 2. Mallappa Balappa Bileyali, Aged 35 years, 0cc: Agriculture, 3. Yallappa Shivappa Karadi Narasapur, Aged 25 years, 0cc: Agriculture, All are residents of Hirekoppa, Taluk Gadag. .. PETITIONERS (by Shri K.L.Patil, Adv.,) AND: The State of Karnataka, By Gadag Betageri Police Station, 2 Represented by SPP .. RESPONDENT (by Shri Vinayak S Kuilcarni, Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to enlarge the petitioners on regular bail in connection with Gadag-Betageri PS Crime No.25/2010 which is registered for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 448, 302, 504 read with 149 IPC. This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following :- ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The facts briefly stated are that one Allasab Walikar, had lodged a complaint to state that one Sunanda Karadi was married to Karadi of Annigere Village. It was claimed that Dawalsab Walilcar, who was the son of the complainant had teased and misbehaved with her and in that regard, Sunanda had lodged a complaint And by way of counter, the mother of Dawalsab had also lodged a complaint against the Ibmily members of Sunanda and both the cases had resulted in S 3 acquittal. By virtue ofthe complaint and counter complaint and the cases that followed, there was ill-will and hostility between the family members of these persons. It was further stated that on 19.3.2010, in the evening, when the son of complainant, Dawalsab was at home, several people had barged into the house with deadly weapons and took Dawalsab outside the house and assaulted him with deadly weapons severely injuring him and ultimately Dawalsab succumbed to the injuries. The assailants are named as accused nos. 1 to 15. The petitioners are accused nos.4,6 and 8. It is their case that they had approached the Court of sessions in the first instance seeking regular bail which was rejected. The petitioners had thereafter approached this court and this court also had rejected the application for bail. However, the present petition is filed alleging the changed circumstances. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on the very day and at the very time, there were two other ‘1 4 cases foisted against the accused, whereby they had committed the offence far away from the place of incident in the present case, which is a contradiction in terms and is wholly inexplicable. This is a glaring circumstance that would disclose the falsity of the complaint that is brought against the accused and therefore, the accused languishing in custody results in a grave injustice and they ought to be enlarged on bail pending trial. The learned counsel would emphasize and reemphasize this aspect of the matter in seeking bail, notwithstanding the earlier rejection by this court. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate has filed his objections and would contend that insofar as the proceedings are concerned, the charge-sheet has been submitted insofar as the death of Dawalsab is concerned in Crime No.25/2010. Three eye-witnesses named as CWs 6, 7 and 8 have categorically stated that it was these accused who had assaulted the deceased Dawalsab with deadly weapons causing S 5 his death. The Post-mortem report reveals that the deceased ‘had sustained grievous injuries on the vital parts of his body and the doctors have opined that the death was as a result of shock on account ofthe injuries sustained. There were in alL 15 injuries all over the body of the deceased which would clearly disclose the brutal manner in which the deceased was done to death. Therefore, in the face of the clinching evidence against the accused, the accused being enlarged on bail would pose a serious impediment to the trial as it is likely that they would interfere and threaten prosecution witnesses and therefore, would submit that the petition be rejected. 5. In the given facts and circumstances, the alleged contradiction and the inexplicable circumstance that on the same day and at the same time, the accused are said to have involved in two incidents at places which are far apart physically, which is an impossibility, is a matter which requires to be explained by the prosecution at the trial and it is a 6 matter which would relate to the merits of the case. insofar as the circumstances are concerned, there are adequate circumstances to reject the petition for hail and it cannot be said that there was any changed circumstance on account of the infirmity sought to be highlighted. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. sal fly