Karnataka High Court
Siddappa S/O Shivappa Bandakkalavar ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102398 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1. SIDDAPPA
S/O. SHIVAPPA BANDAKKALAVAR
@ BANDAKKANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
2. PARAMESHAPPA
S/O. CHANNAPPA STHAVARAD
@ STHVARAKAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
3. GANESH
S/O. PRAMESHAPPA STAVARAD @
STHVARAKAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
4. MALATESH
S/O. PRAMESHAPPA STAVARAD @
STHVARAKAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
5. MUKESH @ SHANMUKHA
S/O. PRAMESHAPPA STAVARAD @
STHVARAKAR
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
2
6. RAJU @ NAGARAJ
S/O. RUDRAPPA STAVARAD @
STHVARAKAR
AGED AB0UT 30 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
7. IRANNA @ IRAPPA
S/O * RUDRAPPA STAVARAD @
STHAVARKAR
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
8. RAVI
S/O. RAJAPPA @ NAGARAJ STAVARAD
@ STHVARAKAR
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
9. BHIMESH
S/O. SIDDAPPA BANDAKKALAVAR @
BANDAKKANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
CHINNAMULGUNDA VILLAGE
TALUK: HIREKERUR
DISTRICT: HAVERI ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHANA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HANSABHAVI P.S.
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP (VIDEO CONFERENCE))
* Corrected vide chamber order dated 14.10.2022
Sd/-
JUDGE
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 TO 9 ON REGULAR
BAIL HANSABHAVI P.S. CRIME NO.59/2022 REGISTERED FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148,
323, 342, 326, 307, 355, 448, 504, 506, 354 READ WITH
SECTION 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 9 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.59/2022 registered by Hansabhavi Police Station, Haveri for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 355, 448, 504, 506, 149 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Shantappa Vallagaddi, the Police registered a case and it was alleged that on 22.04.2022, the accused persons formed unlawful assembly and 4 entered into the house of the complainant with a wrong impression that his son-Shivaraj was in love with the daughter of accused No.1. The accused persons dragged him out, assaulted with their hands, fisted on his face, torn his clothes, completely made him naked and they took him on a procession in an open tractor and tied him to a pole in front of Durgadevi Temple. When the complainant and his relatives came to rescue, the petitioners said to be threatened the complainant with dire consequences. After registering the case, the Police tried to arrest these petitioners. Hence, they approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.101749/2022 which came to be rejected on 04.07.2022. Subsequently, the petitioners said to be surrendered before the J.M.F.C. Court on 07.07.2022 and they said to be remanded to the judicial custody. The Investigating Officer has completed the investigation and charge-sheet came to be filed when they are in custody for more than two months. Hence, they are before this Court.
5
4. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly, the daughter of accused No.1 is said to be called by son of the complainant-Shivaraj to his house and he said be dragged her by holding her hands and closed the door, at that time, accused came inside and dragged Shivaraj out of the house and brutally assaulted him. Thereafter, they tore the entire cloth of the injured. Subsequently, one of the accused told that he would be taught lesson by making a procession in the open tractor. Thereafter, they totally naked him and made a procession and thereafter tied him in front of the Durgadevi Temple and brutally assaulted him. When the complainant and his relatives came to rescue, the petitioners said to be threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Subsequently, the son of the complainant said to be arrested by the Police by registering a case under POCSO Act and these petitioners approached this Court for granting anticipatory bail but this Court has rejected the bail petitions and has held that they are required for custodial interrogation. As the accused persons are most 6 influenced persons, in spite of three months, the police have not chosen to arrest these petitioners. It appears that the petitioners subsequently and after rejecting the bail petitions have directly surrendered before the Magistrate. It is unfortunate that the Investigating Officer or the learned APP who appeared in the J.M.F.C. Court did not choose to file any application for seeking police custody of these accused persons for the purpose of custodian interrogation. Even though this Court has rejected the anticipatory bail of these accused persons on the ground that they are required for custodian interrogation and in spite of the same, the learned APP who was appearing for the State in the Magistrate Court and the Investigating Officer, for the best reason known to him, has not sought any police custody by filing application before the Court, but mechanically he has filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons before the Magistrate. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, of course, this Court has rejected the bail petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., now they are in custody for more than two months. The 7 investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed. The tractor which was used by the accused were already seized apart from the clubs used by them. The act of the accused is condemnable and is inhuman conduct where they made a male adult person totally naked and took procession in an open tractor to show the public that if anybody interferes, then they are dealt with such a manner and they also terrorized the public in the said act. As rightly held above by me, the Investigating Officer, in spite of registering the case in the month of April 2022, he has not chosen to arrest the accused persons for almost three months and even after rejection of bail petition, the Investigating Officer did not choose to seek any police custody for interrogation which shows, the petitioners are most influenced persons in the village and they may won over the Investigating Officer. Therefore, it is necessary for the Superintendent of Police, Haveri to take proper action against the erring officer and dereliction of duty by the Investigating Officer in due course. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am 8 of the view, the petitioners shall be released on bail putting some stringent conditions, it will not cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution.
5. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed. The Committal Court is directed to release the petitioner-accused on bail in Crime No.*59/2022 registered by *Hansabhavi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 326, *342, 307, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 9 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal Court;
(ii) Petitioners shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;
(iii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses directly/
indirectly;
* Corrected vide chamber order dated 14.10.2022 Sd/-
JUDGE 9
(iv) Petitioners shall take trial without causing any delay.
If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order.
The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police, Haveri for taking necessary action against the Investigating Officer who has not sought any police custody of these accused persons in spite of rejecting the anticipatory bail by this Court in earlier order dated 04.07.2022 when they surrendered before the Magistrate and report to the Additional Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad with regard to action against the Investigating Officer within three months.
Sd/-
JUDGE GBB 10 CRL.P NO. 102398/2022 KNJ 14.10.2022 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) ORDER ON "BEING SPOKEN TO"
Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo 'For Being Spoken To' for making necessary corrections in the order dated 15.09.2022 as there is an error crept-in the name of petitioner No.7 in the cause-title of the order and at paragraph No.5 in page No.8 of the order in respect of Crime No.76/2022 registered by Maddur Police Station, Mandya District for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 355, 448, 504, 506 and 149 of IPC.
Perused the order dated 15.09.2022. There is a clerical error in the said order. Hence, the same may be corrected as per the provision of Section 362 of Cr.P.C. The name of the petitioner No.7 is to be corrected as "Iranna @ Irappa S/o. Rudrappa Stavarad @ Sthavarkar" instead of "Iranna @ Irappa S/o. Nagaraj Stavarad @ Sthvarkar" and at page No.8, paragraph No.5, it has to be corrected as "Crime No.59/2022 registered by Hansabhavi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 326, 342, 307, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC" instead 11 of "Crime No.76/2022 registered by Maddur Police Station, Mandya District for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 355, 448, 504, 506, 149 of IPC".
Office to make necessary corrections and keep amended operative portion of this order with previous order dated 15.09.2022 and issue fresh certified copy to the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sd/-
JUDGE GBB