Karnataka High Court
Raghavendra S/O. Devaraddi Koni vs The State Of Karnataka, on 25 July, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10742/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Raghavendra
S/o. Devaraddi Koni
Age. Major,
Occ. Coolie & Agriculture,
R/o. Binkadakatti,
Tq. Gadag.
2. Raghavendra @ Hanamantappa
S/o. Yallappa Karalingannavar
@ Adnur, Age. Major,
Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Binkadakatti,
Tq. Gadag.
...Petitioners
(By Sri K.L. Patil, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
By State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka.
...Respondent
(By Sri V.M. Banakar, Additional State Public Prosecutor)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to enlarge
petitioners on anticipatory bail in connection with Gadag
P.S. Crime No. 43/2010 (C.C. No. 406/2012) on the file of
the II Addl. Civil Judge & II J.M.F.C. Court, Gadag,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 148, 353, 332, 504, 506, 435 and 427 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 2
of the Karnataka Prevention of Damage to Public Property
Act, 1984.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioners are accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 332, 504, 506, 435 and 427 read with Section 149 and Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the First Information Report, on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated, did not anywhere specify the names of the 3 present petitioners. It is only in the chargesheet that their names have been included and that it is a false case foisted against them on account of political rivalry. They are respected citizens in society, and therefore, it is to tarnish their fair image that such proceedings had been initiated against them and they have been included along with the lumpen elements, merely to harm their political careers. The Court below has considered this aspect of the matter and has opined that it is not significant that their names may not have been contained in First Information Report and if upon investigation, the case has been made out against them, it is possible that their names have been shown in the chargesheet. In any event, it was pointed that petitioners were absconding since the initiation of the proceedings, and therefore, on the strong objection raised by the Public Prosecutor before the trial Court, the Court below has refused to grant anticipatory bail. There is no warrant for consideration of the prayer before this Court for such anticipatory bail. The petitioners may approach the Court below for regular bail, 4 since it is evident that they have been absconding since the date of initiation of the proceedings, without prejudice to their case, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE hnm/-