Karnataka High Court
Uma Devi W/O Manu Rathod vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 20 January, 2016
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201146/2014
BETWEEN:
UMA DEVI W/O MANU RATHOD
AGED 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O ATHARGA TANDA NO.2, TQ: INDI
DIST: BIJAPUR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PSI
DEVAR-HIPPERAGI PS
2. LAXMIBAI W/O CHANDRAKANTH GOUDGAVI
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O ATHARGA, TQ: INDI, DIST: BIJAPUR
3. VIASHALI D/O CHANDRAKANTH GOUDGAVI
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O ATHARGA, TQ: INDI, DIST: BIJAPUR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR M., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO
RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 VIDE ORDER DATED 22.11.2014
PASSED IN HORTI POLICE STATION CRIME NO.161/2014 BY
II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE, BIJAUR
& DIRECT THE SPECIAL COURT TO SECURE THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 AND TAKE THEM TO CUSTODY IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.R.S.Lagali, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner/complainant, Sri.Shivanand V. Pattanshetti, learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri.Sheshadri Jaishankar M., leaned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 - State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner seeks for cancellation of bail granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3 by the jurisdictional Sessions Court by order dated 22.11.2014 on the ground that averments made in the complaint would indicate that offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC since, respondent Nos.2 and 3 had burnt the hut 3 belonging to complainant and without considering this material aspect in proper perspective, jurisdictional Sessions Court has erroneously granted bail to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and as such learned counsel for petitioner seeks for cancellation of bail.
3. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that trial Court taking into consideration that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are womenfolk, has granted regular bail and there is no error committed by trial Court for canceling such bail granted on 22.011.2014. Hence, he seeks for rejection of the petition.
4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, it would indicate that on account of certain property dispute between petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 there is complaint and counter complaint lodged by the parties. Land belonging to accused family is alleged to have 4 transferred the name of complainant based on a General Power of Attorney that too executed in the presence of Notary Public. It is alleged in the complaint that accused persons and son of accused No.1 had trespassed into lands and committed mischief by litting fire to one of the hut situated in the land in occupation of petitioner and caused damage to said property. Taking note of this aspect and also considering the fact that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are womenfolk and this prayer is coming under exceptional clause of Section 437 of Cr.P.C., senior Court has granted bail to them. There is no error committed by Sessions Court for this Court to cancel the said bail granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3.
In that view of matter, I do find any merit in this petition and same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srt