Karnataka High Court
M.N. Shivanna Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.345 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. M.N.SHIVANNA GOWDA
S/O NINGAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS
R/O MADAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 123
2. LINGARAJU
S/O MOTAIAH
AGED 27 YEARS
R/O RAGHAVANA
HOSUR VILLAGE
AMRUTHUR
HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 123
3. NANJA
S/O KAPANAIAH
AGED 30 YEARS
R/O SINGONAHALLI VILLAGE
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 123
4. KUMARA
S/O CHIKKA HANUMAIAH
28 YEARS, R/O SINGONAHALLI VILLAGE
KUNIGAL TALUK
2
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 123
... PETITIONERS
[BY SMT.M.GAYATHRI ADV. FOR SRI.C.H.HANUMANTHARAYA
& ASSTS., ADVS.,]
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KUNIGAL P.S.,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130
...RESPONDENT
[BY SRI.G.M.SRINIVASA REDDY, HCGP]
*****
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF THE CR.P.C. WITH A PRAYER TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN
CR.NO.379/12 OF KUNIGAL P.S., TUMKUR, WHICH IS
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCEs PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 341, 352, 365, 504, 506
R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING FOR ORDERS ON
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo to the effect that subsequent to filing of this petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner No.4 was arrested, therefore, the petition insofar as it relates to petitioner no.4 has become infructuous. Memo is placed on record. In the light of the same, the petition insofar as 3 it relates to petitioner No.4 is dismissed as having become infructuous.
2. I have heard the petition insofar as it relates to petitioners 1 to 3.
3. In this petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners have sought for relief of Anticipatory Bail apprehending their arrest by respondent- Kunigal police in connection with case in Crime No.379/2012 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 341, 352, 365, 504, 506 R/W 149 of Indian Penal Code.
4. According to the case of prosecution the aforesaid case came to be registered on the basis of report said to have been lodged by one Veeralingaiah, son of Lingappa and resident of Doddamavatoor Village, Huliyadurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur about the incident said to have occurred at 9.45p.m. on 6.12.12.
4
5. On coming to know of the registration of the case, petitioners approached the learned Sessions Judge for relief of Anticipatory Bail. The said petition came to be rejected. Therefore, they are before this Court.
6. No doubt, petitioners 1 to 3 have been arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 in the aforesaid case registered by the respondent-police for non bailable offences. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners that they are likely to be arrested is well founded. However, perusal of the allegations made in the FIR indicates that serious allegations have been made against petitioners 1 to 3 with regard to acts of rioting with dangerous weapons and abduction of one G.T.Krishnappa of Golarahatti and Shivanna of Rajendrapura while they were travelling in a bus and taking them in a Tata Sumo vehicle by threatening them that they should not cast their votes against petitioner No.1 who was the contesting candidate for the post of President of Hosahalli Grama Panchayath. Having regard to the serious allegations made in the 5 complaint made by the complainant-Veeralingaiah, at this stage there are reasonable grounds to indicate the complicity of these petitioners for the aforesaid offences. Regard being had to the nature and gravity of the offences alleged, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for granting relief of Anticipatory Bail to petitioners 1 to 3.
7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that similar complaint had been lodged on behalf of these petitioners also against the complainant in this case and others and that on the date of election to the post of President both parties were present as is evident from the copy of the proceedings drawn on the date of election. Therefore, the allegations made against the complainant are all false and frivolous and is filed in the background of political ill will. At this stage this Court cannot decide as to whether the allegations made in the complaint are false, since, it is a matter for investigation. Prima facie, the allegations made in the complaint makes out the offences 6 alleged. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief of Anticipatory Bail. Hence, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE SS*