IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2b: DAY OF JLLY. 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE 1iR.JESTICE B.V.PINTO CRIMINALPETITIONNO.10854/2011 BETWEEN: Malakari I, Mallikarjun S/o. Dundappa Sankratti Aged 28 years, 0cc: P. G. Student R/o. Kankanawadi village Taluk: Raibagh. Dist. Belgaum PETITIONER (By Sri. A. S. Patil. Adv.) AND: The State of Karnataka By Raibagh Police Station Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka RESPONDENT (By Sri .Ananclkumar Navalgimath. HCGP) This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of CR.P.C seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No. 1 and arrested in Crime No.314/2010 on the file of Raibagh P.S. (S.C.No. I 24,/201 I on the file of the Il-Addi. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Belgaumi &. charge sheeted for the offences p/u/s. 143, 147. 148, 341, 302 and 504 r/w Section 149 of IPC. ) This criminal petition coming on for orders this clay, the Court made the following: - ORDER This petition is filed seeking bail in Crime No.314/2010 of Raibagh Police Station registered on 07.11.2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147. 148, 341. 302. 504 read with Section 149 of IPC. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that there was dispute regarding the property bearing suncy No.79/2003 of Saasuddi illagc Raibagh taluk. which was divided into two portions between the two brothers and the brother of the complainant was adopted b3 his uncle and a land of 6 acres 20 guntas was partitioned in the name of the said brother and according to the terms of partition, a mutation was effected to show that the land of six acres 20 guntas was registered in the name of Vithal, who is the brother of the complainant. The accused are the cousins of the complainant and in -3- respect of this partition, there vas a case filed before the High Court and a stay order was brought by the deceased Laxman in respect of the transfer of property of the said Vithal and it was ordered that the said land should not be alienated to some other persons. 3. Being aggrieved by the said incidents, on 07.11.2010, at about 9.30 a.m., it is alleged that all the accused who are numbering 11 including the petitioner herein assaulted the deceased. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner has assaulted the deceased on his head by means of axe, one Siddappa has assaulted with iron long and one Bhimappa has assaulted with sickle and caused the instantaneous...death . of .the deceased.- Siddappa. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the eyewitnesses namely. Ramappa and his wife have stated that the incident has taken place at 9.00 am, where as some other eyewitnesses have stated that ---z t -”_ ... I the incident happened at 7.00 am. lie further submits that though the complainant stated that three pt’rsons have assaulted the deceased with three different weapons. the post mortem report reveals 0n13 tw ci injuries on the dead hod. Hence 1w submits that there is discrepancy regarding the time of assault and the manner in which the deceased was assaulted. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader objects to the grant of bail on the ground that there are eyewitnesses to the incident and that there are specific otert acts alleged against the petitioner. 6. Having regard to the fact that the complaint narrates the specific overt act against the petitioner and that the death is due to the injuries caused by the weapon. the discrepancy mentioned h the learned Counsel for the petitioner is a matter to be decided at the time of trial. At this stage. no threadbare discussion a on the evidence on record can be carried out for grant or refusal of the bail. 7. Under thc circumstances. I am of the opinion that. in view of the material on record. the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of bail. According. this petition is dismissed. Sd/ gab