Karnataka High Court
Rajeswari W/O. Basavaraj Katariki vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 October, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
Crl.P.No.102304/2017
BETWEEN
1. RAJESWARI W/O.BASAVARAJ KATARIKI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. ALAWANDI, TALUK & DIST: KOPPAL.
2. UMESHGOUDA
S/O. BASAVANAGOUDA PATTADAKAL
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O. ALAWANDI, TALUK & DIST: KOPPAL.
3. MALLAPPA S/O. RAMANNA MOHANTI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O. ALAWANDI, TALUK & DIST: KOPPAL.
4. NAVEED M. MANGALAPUR
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. ALAWANDI, TALUK & DIST: KOPPAL.
5. RAMESH S/O.SHEKAPPA BHAVIHALLI
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O. ALAWANDI, TALUK & DIST: KOPPAL.
6. GYANAPPA S/O.NINGAPPA KATI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O. ALAWANDI, TALUK & DIST: KOPPAL.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.GURUBASAVARAJ S.M., ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION,
2
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE
PETITIONERS FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 466,
506, 418, 419, 420, 465, 468, 415, 416, 417, 467 OF IPC IN
CRIME NO. 11 OF 2017 WITH THE KOPPAL TOWN POLICE
STATION, KOPPAL PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.) AND JMFC KOPPAL.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.11/2017 by the Koppal Town Police, which arose in P.C.No.159/2016, for the offences punishable under Sections 466, 506, 418, 419, 420, 465, 468, 415, 416, 417 and 467 of I.P.C. Hence, this petition along with other grounds urged therein.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned SPP for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments contended that a case in Crime 3 No.11/2017 arose on filing of the private complaint in P.C.No.159/2016 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Koppal. Based upon the private complaint, the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Koppal has referred the case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigating the case and to submit the report. Subsequent to registering a case in Crime No.11/2017 against the accused, the Police are making hectic efforts to arrest the accused without there being any reason, as this contention, which has taken by the learned counsel for the accused during the course of his arguments, apart from the other grounds urged therein that the accused are permanent resident of Alawandi village and also having deep roots in the society and moreover the accused are ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court, while granting bail to them. However, the materials which were available on record relating to the crime, which is registered by the Police, it is relevant to state that the dispute is civil in nature, despite of it, the complainant who has filed the complaint by creating a theory to register the crime against the accused with an oblique motive, just to give 4 harassment to them. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused prays for anticipatory bail by considering the grounds, as urged in this criminal petition.
4. Per contra, the learned SPP for the respondent- State during the course of his argument contends that a case in crime No.11/2017 came to be registered against the accused, which is based upon the case in P.C.No.159/2016 for the aforesaid offences by creating the documents and also cheating and as well as extending life threat to the complainant. On these grounds, the learned SPP for the respondent-State submits that the petitioners do not deserve for anticipatory bail and prays for dismissal of the bail petition.
5. Having regard to the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners and as well as the learned SPP for the respondent-State are concerned, it is relevant to state that the complainant who has filed the private complaint in P.C.No.159/2016 for the aforesaid offences as stated supra, similarly the offences which are reflected in Crime No.11/2017 registered by the respondent Police and 5 thereafter to proceed with the case for investigation. However, subsequent to registering the crime against the accused, the case is still under investigation by the Investigating Officer by recording the statement of witnesses and so also securing the documents relating to the alleged crime as well as the mahazar it is required to be conducted for the complicity of the crime, which is reflected in the private complaint and so also in the FIR, which has been recorded by the respondent- Police. Therefore, this Court feels that at this stage it does not require any detail discussion, while considering the bail petition filed by the petitioners/accused. Whereas the learned SPP submits that, if the petitioners are supposed to be released on bail, certainly they would come in the way of the prosecution case and destroy the evidence. As this apprehension expressed by the learned SPP could be curtailed by imposing certain suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons and as well as the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners/accused are deserving for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
6
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed with subject to the following conditions:
(1) The petitioners/accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer in Crime No.11/2017 of Koppal Town Police Station, which arose in P.C.No.159/2016, within 20 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with likesum surety to the satisfaction of him, in the event of their arrest.
(2) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.
(3) The petitioners shall not tamper or hamper the case of prosecution witnesses. (4) The petitioners shall not indulge with any other criminal activities henceforth. 7
(5) The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in fortnight as per the English monthly calendar in between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for a period of three months before the concerned SHO.
If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stand ceased.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp*