Karnataka High Court
Shekhappa S/O Tippanna Savanur vs State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
Crl.P.No.102496/2017
BETWEEN
1. SHEKHAPPA S/O TIPPANNA SAVANUR
AGE 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
& BUSINESS, R/O: SANGUR,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
2. KIRAN S/O SHEKHAPPA SAVANUR
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: SANGUR, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
3. SHAMBU S/O IRAPPA ANGADI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SANGUR, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.ARAVIND D.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HAVERI RURAL POLICE,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE
PETITIONERS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO
RELEASE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO. 1, 3 AND 4 ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN HAVERI RURAL POLICE
STATION, HAVERI IN CRIME NO. 237 OF 2017 REGISTERED FOR
2
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148,
324, 504, 506 READ WITH 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(r), 3(2)(Va)
OF SC AND ST AMENDED (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT
BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.237/2017 of Haveri Rural P.S., for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, besides Section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(Va) of SC & ST amended (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "the Act'). Hence, this petition, among the grounds urged therein.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on filing of the complaint by the complainant before the respondent-Police, a case in Crime No.237/2017 came to be registered against the accused for the alleged offences, wherein it is alleged that on 21.10.2017, the complainant had been to Kulenur Village for watching Bullock race and after watching the same, he was returning to his village, when he was near Primary Health Center, Kulenur around 10 to 12 persons suddenly stopped him and picked up a quarrel and assaulted with hand, clubs 3 and stones and also abused him in filthy language. One person by name Krishna came to rescue the complainant from the clutches of the accused, but he was also assaulted; the complainant lost his consciousness and he has been admitted to Haveri District Hospital for treatment and even the said Krishna was also taking treatment in the said Hospital. On these allegations made in the complaint, which is filed before the Police crime came to be registered and thereafter to proceed with the case for investigation.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned SPP for the respondent-State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments has contended that the petitioners/accused are innocent persons for the alleged offense and there is no direct overt-act against these petitioners, despite of it the petitioners were lugged into the alleged crime with an oblique motive just to give harassment to them that on 21.10.2017, when the complainant while returning to his village after watching Bullock race, the accused persons picked up with a quarrel and assaulted him 4 with hand, clubs and stones and also abused him in filthy language. The complainant lost his consciousness and he has been admitted to Haveri District Hospital for treatment and now the complainant has been discharged from Hospital. It is further contended that the ingredients which were found place in the complaint as well as reflection made in the FIR does not constitute the alleged offences. He further contended that the accused hails from the respectable family and had respect in the eye of society and also ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court, while granting bail to them. It is further contended that there is no specific bar under Section 18 of the Act, relating to the offence, which has lugged into the alleged crime. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused prays for anticipatory bail by considering the grounds as urged in this criminal petition.
5. Per contra, the learned SPP during the course of his argument contended that on filing of the complaint by the complainant, crime came to be registered and thereafter to proceed with the case for investigation by the Investigation Officer by recording the statement of the witnesses, which is in conformity with the averments made in the complaint as 5 well as the reflection made in the FIR. It is further contended that on 21.10.2017 the accused were gathered and picked up a quarrel with the complainant, while he was returning from Kulenur village after watching the Bullock race and assaulted him with hand, clubs and stones and also abused him in filthy language. It is further contended that there are prima- facie materials against the petitioners/accused in committing the alleged offences and moreover the accused are absconding since from committing the offences. Therefore, the learned SPP for the respondent-State submits that the petitioners do not deserve for bail and prays for dismissal of the bail petition filed by the petitioners/accused.
6. Having regard to the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned SPP for the respondent-State are concerned, it is relevant to state that the complainant who has filed the complaint against the accused for the aforesaid offences as stated supra, similarly the offences which are reflected in Crime registered by the respondent-Police and thereafter to proceed with the case for investigation. However, subsequent to registering the crime against the accused, the case is still under investigation by 6 the Investigating Officer by recording the statement of witnesses and so also securing the documents relating to the alleged crime. Therefore, this Court feels that at this stage it does not require any detail discussion, while considering the bail petition filed by the petitioners/accused. Whereas the learned SPP submits that, if the petitioners are supposed to be released on bail, certainly they would come in the way of the prosecution case and destroy the evidence. As this apprehension expressed by the learned SPP could be curtailed by imposing suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons and as well as the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners/accused are deserving for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed with subject to the following conditions:
(1) The petitioners/accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer in Crime 7 No.237/2017 of Haveri Rural Police Station, within 20 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with likesum surety to the satisfaction of him, in the event of their arrest.
(2) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.
(3) The petitioners shall not tamper or hamper the case of prosecution witnesses.
(4) The petitioners shall not indulge with any other criminal activities henceforth.
(5) The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in fortnight as per the English monthly calendar in between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for a period of three months before the concerned SHO.
If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stand ceased.
SD/-
JUDGE Vnp*