1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short), seeking to enlarge the petitioners-accused Nos.3, 6 and 8 on bail in Crime No.46/2022 of Yapaladinni Police Station, Raichur district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 109, 307, 323, 324, 447, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short).

2. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 5 forming themselves into an unlawful assembly trespassed into the land belonging to the complainant on 01.06.2022 at 2.30 p.m., and destroyed the bund/boundary. Again on 02.06.2022 at 12.00 p.m., all the accused named in the FIR came to the land of the complainant in Mahindra Tractor and accused Earesha, tried to dash the said tractor to Hanumantha, the brother of complainant and the other accused assaulted said Hanumantha with hands and a club thereby causing injuries to said Hanumantha and other three persons were also assaulted by the accused in the incident, namely the complainant-Kolumappa, his wife Mallamma and his brother’s wife Shantamma W/o Hanumanthu. Therefore, as the accused tried to take away the life of injured Hanumantha with the help of tractor, complaint came to be lodged.

3. It is stated that these petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.3, 6 and 8 as per the FIR. It is stated that they are in judicial custody since 04.06.2022. The petition filed by them came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Court. Hence, this petition is filed seeking bail.

4. Heard Sri Ganesh Subhashchandra Kalburgi learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there was assault on the accused and they have also lodged the complaint against the complainant and his family members which is registered in Crime No.47/2022 of Yapaldinni police station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 447, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioners had no knowledge about the incident and they are falsely implicated in the case. They are ready to furnish surety. Learned counsel also argued that the injured are already discharged from the hospital on the very same day. The injuries sustained by the victims are simple in nature. Therefore, the ingredients of offence under Section 307 of IPC are not at all attracted. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

6. Against this, learned High Court Government Pleader argued that these petitioners tried to run over the tractor on the complainant and tried to kill Hanumantha. Accused have destroyed the bund in the land of this complainant and on the next day again, they tried to assault them with hands and sticks. Therefore, if they are released on bail, certainly they would come in the way of prosecution and destroy the evidence or there is possibility that they may abscond. Hence, he prays for rejection of bail petition.

7. It is settled principle of law that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. While granting or rejecting the bail application, the Court will have to take into consideration,

"(1) the nature and seriousness of the offence;

(2) character of the accused;

(3) circumstances which are peculiar to accused;

(4) reasonable probabilities of presence of the accused not being secured at trial;

(5) reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; and

(6) larger interest of public or the state and similar other considerations, which arise when a court is asked to admit the accused to bail in a nonbailable offence."

8. In the light of this principle, I have considered the materials placed on record. It is evident that there is boundary dispute between the complainant’s family members and the accused. The complainant alleged that boundary/ bund was destroyed by these accused persons. On the other hand, accused have also lodged a complaint alleging assault on them by the complainant’s family. It is stated that the complainant and their family members in that case were already ordered to be enlarged on bail. Learned High Court Government Pleader has produced a copy of the wound certificate which indicates that there is only one simple injury on the injured Hanumantha and the injuries sustained by others are simple in nature. It is also evident that on the same day the injured have taken treatment as outpatient and they were not at all admitted to the hospital. It is not in dispute that they are in judicial custody since 04.06.2022 for more than two months. Looking into the nature of allegations against the petitioners; statement of the witnesses and overt act committed by these petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that petitioners have made out grounds to enlarge them on bail. The apprehension of the prosecution can be meted out by imposing reasonable conditions on the petitioners. Accordingly, I pass the following:

O R D E R

The criminal petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.

The petitioners/accused Nos.3, Kari Mallesh S/o Hanumanthu, accused No.6, Mahanandi S/o Yarramallayya and accused No.8 Mahesh S/o Govinda in Crime No.46/2022 of Yapaladinni Police Station, Raichur district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 109, 307, 323, 324, 447, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioners shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Committal/Trial Court, where the case is now pending;

ii) The petitioners shall not try to tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

iii) The petitioners shall furnish proof of their correct residential addresses to the Investigating Officer and shall inform the Investigating Officer if there is any change in the address;

iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial/concerned Court without its prior permission;

v) The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal activities and shall not commit similar offences;

vi) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m., and 4.00 p.m., for a period of two months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier.

In case any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail.