IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF JUNE, 2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7589/2010 & CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7598/2010 & CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7617/2010 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7589/2010 BETWEEN: MAHADEVI, W/O. MARUTI DURGAI, AGE 42 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD, R/A. DEVAGIRI, TQ. & DIST. DHARWAD PETITIONER (BY SRI B.V. SOMPUR, ADV.,) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BY ALVANAR POLCIE. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI V.S.KULKARNI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH ALNAVAR NO.10/2010 UNDER SECTION R/W.149 IPC, WHICH IS C.C.NO.988/2010 PENDING ON JMFC- II, DHARWAD. POLICE STATION CRIME 143,147,148,448,504,302 NOW REGISTERED IN THE FILE OF LEARNED CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7598/2010 BETWEEN: 1. SANJU @ SANJAY S/O. SAMBAJI DURGAI, AGE: 26 YEARS, AGRICULTURE. 2. RAVI MUDUKAPPA JOTHIBA, AGE: 26 YEARS, AGRICULTURE. BOTH RESIDENTS OF DEVAGIRI VILLAGE TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. (BY SRI. B.V.SOMAPUR, ADV.,) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BY ALVANAR POLCIE. (BY SRI V.S.KULKARNI, HCGP) • ..PETITIONERS RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 CR.P.C. SEEKING TO RELEASE THE PETITONER ON BAIL IN ALNAWAR POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.10/10 UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 448, 504, 302 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC WHICH IS NOW REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.988/2010 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED JMFC II, DHARWAD. Li ‘4 3 CRIMINAL PETITiON NO.7617/2010 BETWEEN: 1. ANAND 5/0. TANAJI DURGAI, •AGE: MAJOR, 0CC: AGRICULTURE. 2. MALLAPPA @ MALLIKAJUN, 5/0. VITFAL DURGAI, AGE: MAJOR, 0CC: AGRICULTURE. BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF DEVAGIRI VILLAGE, ____ TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. ...Pt I I I iONERS (BY SRI. B.R.SOMAPUR, ADV.,) AND: ThE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BY ALVANAR POLCIE. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI V.S.KULKARNI, HCGP) ThIS CRIMINAL Ptii I iON IS FILED U/S. 439 CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PtriiiONER IN ALNAVAR POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.10/2010 UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 448, 504, 302 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC PENDING ON ThE FILE OF THE LEARNED JMFC II, DHARWAD. THESE Ptii i iONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS ThIS DAY, THE COURT MADE ThE FOLLOWING: 4 ORDER These three petitions are by the accused who are facing charge for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 504, 302 R/W Sec. 149 IPC. 2. Crl.P.No.7589/2010 is filed by accused No.11, Crl.P.No.7598/2010 is by accused Nos.9 and 12 and Crl.P.No.7617/2010 is by accused Nos.7 and 4. Petitioners in Crl.P.No.7589/2010 and CrI.P.No.7598 are in judicial custody. They seek bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. while petitioners in Crl.P.No.7617/2010 are not yet arrested. They seek anticipatory bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Government pleader. 4. The prosecution case is based on the report of Smt.Katumbi W/o. Amminsab Pendari in which she alleged that accused No.3 — Mahantesh wanted to marry one Shilpa but her family members including parents opposed the marriage, consequent to which Shilpa left the village. Later, parents of Shilpa agreed to marry her with Mahantesh (accused No.3) and marriage was performed on 23.01.2010. 5. It is alleged at 8.OOPM on 23.01.2010 Complainant’s sons Moulasab and Sayyed came running to the house chased by Maruti Vital Durgai and others. All of them were armed with choppers, clubs and other weapons. It is alleged Mahadevi started beating Complainant’s son Moulasab with hands and abusing them in filthy language. Maruthi Vital Durgai, Pundalik Durgai, Mahantesh Durgai, Tangji Durgal, Ashok Durgai, Ravi Jyotiba, Mahanthesh Jyotiba and Sahadev Durgai assaulted Complainant’s son Sayyad with axe, sickle, koita and stone, consequent to which he fell down. When Complainant’s second son Moulasab came to rescue but he was also chased. Moulasab ran from the spot to escape the assault. But, the persons named above are alleged to have assaulted him with axe and sickle including clubs and stones near water tank of the village. Moulasab also fell to injuries and succumbed to the same. The Complainant claiming to have witnesses the 6 incident described the overt acts of each of the accused and sought action against them. 6. Investigation resulted in arresting accused No.1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14, while the other accused were absconding. During investigation statement of 29 witnesses are recorded. Autopsy discloses sayyad died due to sufferance of shock as a result of 19 injuries to his body including severe injury to head. Moulasab died due to sufferance of five grievous injuries and also major injury to the brain. Thus, the accused are arraigned for the major offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The Complainant has described the overt acts of the petitioners in killing Sayyad and Moulasab. The Complainant has identified in all 14 persons and she has also described the overt acts of the petitioners in these petitions. 7. Therefore, at this juncture there is no sufficient material to bring nexus between the overt acts of the petitioners in Cr1. Pet. No.7617/2010 (accused No.4 to 7) and also overt acts of petitioners in other petitions. They cannot 7 be placed on different pedestal. All of them have roped together using provisions of Section 149 of IPC. Therefore, I find no ground to grant them relief sought for. Petitions are rejected. Sd/ JUDGE BS* VK