Karnataka High Court
Ravi And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 28 July, 2022
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200752/2022
BETWEEN:
1. Ravi S/o Bhavuraya Rathod,
Age: 21 years, Occ: Auto Driver,
2. Shivaraj S/o Bhavuraya Rathod,
Age: 23 years, Occ: Driver,
3. Bahuray S/o Punnu Rathod,
Age: 50 years, Occ: Driver,
All of R/o Panegaon Thanda,
Tq. And Dist: Kalaburagi.
...Petitioners
(By Sri. Ganesh Naik, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka through
Farhatabad Police Station,
Tq. and Dist: Kalaburagi.
Represented by Addl. SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench-585107.
2. Sri. Sunil S/o Hamanna Pawar,
Age: 26 years, Occ: Private Work,
R/o Panegaon Thanda,
Tq. And Dist: Kalaburagi-585102.
...Respondents
(By Sri.Veeranagouda Malipatil, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Petition filed U/s. 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to
allow the petition there by enlarge the petitioners on bail in
Crime No.44/2022, registered by the Farhatabad Police
Station, Dist.Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 324, 307, 114, 504, 506 R/w 34 IPC and
Sec.12 POSCO Act, on the file of II Addl. District and
Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short) praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.44/2022 of Farhatabad Police Station, Dist.Kalaburagi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 114, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and Sections 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for short) 2012.
2. The FIR came to be lodged on the basis of complaint lodged by one Sunil S/o Hamanna Pawar, alleging that his brother informed him that on 14.05.2022 at about 3:00 p.m. petitioner No.1/accused No.1-Ravi was teasing victim-Seema aged about 15 years, stating that he is in love with her and he will marry her, at that time, he abused 3 accused No.1 and sent him. Therefore, the complainant thought that they must be advised; accordingly himself and his brother Rajshekhar, Rahul and his relative Venkatesh, went to the house of petitioner No.1-acused No.1 at about 10:30 p.m. and informed the father of accused No.1 to desist from making any such act on the victim-Seema. At that time, petitioner No.3-accused No.3/Bahuray and his wife accused No.4-Shobha and brother of petitioner No.1, Shivaraj- accused No.2 started abusing them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences to their lives. Accused No.1 assaulted Rajashekhar with axe on his and caused bleeding injury. Accused No.2 assaulted Rahul with axe on his back, caused bleeding injury. Accused No.3 assaulted Venkatesh with club on his head, caused bleeding injury. Accused No.4 abetted all the accused persons to assault them. At that time, relatives of the complainant gathered and pacified the quarrel and rescue them. Hence, this complaint came to be lodged. As the bail petition rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, this petition is filed. 4
3. Heard Sri.Ganesh Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. I have perused the FIR and other materials placed on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the investigation is completed and the Charge Sheet is filed and the injured are discharged from the hospital. The complainant and his team who is aggressor and tried to assault the petitioners. The statement of victim-Seema minor girl does not show to implicate petitioner No.1 about any such allegations of either teasing or insisting her to love him. There is a delay in lodging the complaint. The medial report also shows the date of examination. Hence, prays to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
6. Against this, learned High Court Government Pleader stated that petitioners have committed heinous and non bailable offences. If petitioners are released on bail, they may abscond and they may tamper and hamper the 5 prosecution witnesses. Therefore, prayed to reject the bail petition.
7. I have perused the Charge Sheet and the statement of witnesses and other materials placed on record and statement of the victim before the JMFC Court under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which does not disclose any such act by the petitioner No.1. At this stage it is also stated that incident took place in front of the house of the accused at 10:30 p.m.. The statement discloses that the complainant and his brothers went themselves to the house of the accused to advise them. The injured were already discharged from the hospital. Admittedly, the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The investigation is already completed and petitioners are in custody since 15.05.2022, therefore, petitioners/accused are no more required for interrogation or investigation.
8. It is settled principle of law that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. While granting or rejecting the bail application, the Court will have to take into consideration, 6 (1) the nature and seriousness of the offence; (2) character of the accused;
(3) circumstances which are peculiar to accused;
(4) reasonable probabilities of presence of the accused not being secured at trial;
(5) reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; and (6) larger interest of public or the state and similar other considerations, which arise when a court is asked to admit the accused to bail in a non- bailable offence.
9. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of above principle, in my considered view the petitioners have made out sufficient ground to allow the petition.
10. The apprehension of the prosecution can be meted out by imposing reasonable conditions on the petitioners, as they have undertaken to co-operate with the investigation and furnish sureties. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
7
ORDER The criminal petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The petitioners/accused No.1-Ravi S/o Bhavuraya Rathod, accused No.2-Shivaraj S/o Bhavuraya Rathod, accused No.3 Bhavuraya S/o Punnu Rathod shall be enlarged on regular bail, in Crime No.44/2022 of Farhatabad Police Station, Kalaburagi district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 114, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioners shall execute self-bonds for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with a surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Committal Court/Trial Court where the case is now pending;
ii) The petitioners shall not tamper and threaten the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;
iii) The petitioners shall furnish proof of their residential correct address along with their photos to the Court/Investigating Officer if there is any change in the address.8
iv) The petitioners shall appear before the trial court on all the dates of hearing without fail unless their presence is exempted by the trial court on any day;
v) The petitioner No.1 shall not try to meet the victim-Seema-minor girl i.e. daughter of Iranna daughter of his paternal uncle, as mentioned in the complaint tried to threaten or instigate her in any manner directly or indirectly;
vi) The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal activities and shall not commit similar offences.
vii) The petitioners shall appear before the Court/Investigating Officer as and when required.
In case if any of the conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE s du