Karnataka High Court
Sanni S/O Ayyappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 October, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101844 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SANNI S/O AYYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: KOLAGAL VILLAGE,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
2. THIMMAPPA S/O AYYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: KOLAGAL VILLAGE,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN.P.TARIKAR, ADVOCATE)
A N D:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
THROUGH RURAL POLICE STATION,
BALLARI.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR
ARREST IN CRIME NO.321 OF 2015 REGISTERED BEFORE
RURAL POLICE STATION, BALLARI DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323, 354B, 448, 504, 506 READ
WITH SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent Police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 354B, 448, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.321/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case, that one Shivamma is the complainant filed the complaint alleging that on 06.08.2015 at 2.00 p.m. while the complainant was alone in her house, while doing her domestic work, :3: petitioners said to have suddenly entered into her house and by observing that she being alone caught hold of her hairs and saree scolded her and abused in filthy language, stating that they have already sent her husband and her children to jail by filing a false case against them and also stated that they will see that her husband and children should leave the village. The further allegation that petitioner will see that her family leave the village and given her life threat, if she informed the same to her husband and then ran away. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submission that false allegations are made against the petitioners and there is no prima facie material placed by the prosecution to show the involvement of the petitioners :4: in committing the alleged offence. Hence, submitted by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail. Learned counsel in support of his contention relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2003) 8 SCC 77 in the case of Bharat Chaudhary and another v/s State of Bihar and another.
5. Per contra the learned HCGP made submission that the offence is of the year 2015, continuously for a period of 2 years petitioners absconded. Hence, he made submission that in view of this conduct of the petitioners they are not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.
6. Perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the other materials produced by the petitioners along with the petition. Looking to the grounds urged in the bail petition, it is contended by the petitioners that false allegations are made against them. But whereas in the complaint the complainant clearly mentioned that both the petitioners trespassed into her house when she alone was in the house and they outraged :5: her modesty pulled her by holding her hair and saree. It is also the allegation that they have posed the life threat that they have to leave the village stating that they have already sent her husband and children to the jail. Apart from these allegations in the complaint the conduct of these two petitioners as submitted by the learned HCGP that they made absconding for a period of 02 years immediately after the alleged incident. Therefore, even if anticipatory bail is granted there is no guarantee that they will appear before the Investigation Officer or before the concerned Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is not fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners for the grant of anticipatory bail, in view of their conduct. Accordingly the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHR/-