Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahadev vs M.C. Nanjunda Shivaraj on 17 October, 2016
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4350 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI MAHADEV
S/O LATE PUTTAMADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30YEARS
WATCHMEN
R/AT NO.24, 'D' BLOCK
J.C.LAYOUT, MYSORE - 570 001
...PETITIONER
(BY: SRI. NARENDRA.D.V.GOWDA, FOR
SRI. R.S.RAVI, ADVS.)
AND:
1. M.C. NANJUNDA SHIVARJ
S/O CHINNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.238, NIMISHAMBA PRESS
CHAMUNDI HILL ROAD
J.C.NAGARA, MYSURU - 570 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
LAW AND ORDER
NAZARBAD POLICE STATION
MYSORE - 570 001
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
2
BENGALURU ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP, FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CANCEL
THLE BAIL GRANTED IN CRL.P.NO.2241/2016 DATED
13.11.2016 IN CR. NO.176/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
2ND RESPONDETN POLICE STATION, FILED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 307, 420,
435, 436, 506 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 OF EXPLOSIVE
SUBSTANCE ACT, 1908.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the complainant U/S 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted by this Court on 13.04.2016 to the 1st respondent in Crl.P.No.2241/2016 disposed of on 13.04.2016. The 1st respondent was directed to be released in Crime No.176/2014 on the file of the 2nd respondent - Nazarbad police registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 420, 435, 436, 506 of IPC and Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
2. On the last occasion, to secure the presence of the first respondent before this court, notice was 3 issued. The cause list shows that he has been duly served.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on misrepresentation of facts by the petitioner (1st respondent) in Crl.P.No.2241/2016, and also referring the submissions of the petitioner at paragraph No.7, that two cases are registered on the same day on the same set of facts, the petition came to be allowed on 13.04.2016. The fact that in respect of offences U/S 307, 420, 435, 486 and 506 of IPC and Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, a case was registered in Crime No.176/2014 by the 2nd respondent police and it is submitted that for the same set of offences, another crime case came to be registered in Crime No.177/2016, which is impermissible in law and having taken note of the said statement, this court has granted bail. Learned counsel submitted that on an earlier occasion when the accused approached this court in Crl.P.No.4225/2016 and Crl.P.No.1135/2015, the petitions came to be rejected.
4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this petition for cancellation of bail submitting that the two crime cases registered against the 1st respondent are not on the same facts and offences, and the accused
- 1st respondent has committed those two independent offences for which two separate cases have been registered and complainants are also different and one of the accompanying person of the accused i.e., CW2 has made a submission to the police that two offences have been committed by the accused at different timings and for which two cases have been registered. This fact was not made known to this court either by the counsel for the 1st respondent or the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State. Under these circumstances, this court in Crl.P.No.4221/2016 disposed on 13.04.2016 granted bail by relying on the submission that there are two cases registered against the same accused on the same day for the same set of facts, which in fact is not correct.
5
5. In order to hear the respondent No.1 - accused, a notice was ordered by this court and when notice was served, he / the accused or his representative / counsel should have approached this court. Though it was adjourned to this day to provide an opportunity, none appears, either the accused or his counsel.
6. Learned Government Pleader has also placed reliance on records and submits that the accused - 1st respondent is a rowdy sheeter, and in order to fortify the same he also submitted that 13 cases are pending against him and thus requests this court to cancel the bail granted to him.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.2.
8. I have gone through the orders passed by this court on the earlier occasions. In Crl. P. No.4221/2016, it is stated that two cases have been registered on the basis of the same set of facts, which is 6 improper. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced two FIRs. FIR in Cr.No.176/2014 registered by the Nazarbad Police Station dated 30.06.2014 for the offences punishable U/Ss 435, 436, 506 IPC, and offence was committed on 30.06.2014 between 4.00 hours and 5.00 hours and the complainant's name is Mahadeva. FIR in Cr.No.177/2014 where the complainant's name is Somesh A.S. and the offences are 427 and 307 of IPC. These were two independent set of offences and that cannot be considered for grant of bail in the present case. Under these circumstances petition deserves to be allowed and the bail granted by this court on 13.04.2016 in Criminal Petition No.4221/2016 stands cancelled and the Nazarbad Police is directed to take 1st respondent into custody forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv