Karnataka High Court
Ramesh And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 April, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200403/2018
Between:
1. Ramesh S/o Kalappa Melinmani
Age: 34 years, Occ: Agriculture
2. Bhanupratap S/o Lingayya Gubbewad
Age: 26 years, Occ: Agriculture
3. Mohammed Patel S/o HasanPatel Biradar
Age: 24 years, Occ: Agriculture
All R/o Gubbewad,
Tq: Sindagi Dist: Vijayapur.
... Petitioners
(By Sri G.G.Chagashetti, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
By its State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building Bench at
Kalaburagi
... Respondent
(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar H.C.G.P)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
2
enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in crime
No.58/2018 of Sindagi police station for the offences
punishable under sections 143, 147, 353, 324, 504, 506
R/w Sec.149 of Indian Penal Code pending before 4th Addl.
Sessions Judge Vijayapur.
This petition is coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioners/accused persons have filed this criminal petition under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 353, 324, 504, 506 R/w Sec.149 of Indian Penal Code, arising out of crime No.58/2018 of Sindagi police station
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 17-02-2018 at about 10.30 p.m., Muttanna/PDO has lodged complaint before the Sindagi police station against the accused persons that one month back, accused No.1 came and forced the complainant to give bogus bill for construction of toilet, the complainant 3 refused to do so and instructed to meet the Panchayat President. Therefore the accused No.1 became angry and threatened the complainant. On 17-02-2018 in the morning the complainant and Gram panchayat President Rajkumar came near KEB Sindagi to deposit current bill of Gubbewad, Koralli and Moratagi Gram Panchayats. At that time, the accused No.1 and other two persons abused Gram Panchayat President and assaulted him and kicked. Accused persons came near complainant and took him near KEB gate and assaulted on his stomach and kicked the complainant. In view of the same, the complainant became unconscious and accused persons threatened the complainant to finish him. On the basis of the said complaint, jurisdictional police have registered a case in crime No.58/2018 for the offences stated supra. Hence the present petition is filed for the relief sought for.
4
3. I have the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. Sri.G.G.Chagashetti learned counsel appearing for petitioners/accused persons vehemently contended that, the allegations made in the complainant against the petitioners are false and baseless. The petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in the crime on the extraneous reasons and oblique motive, since there was rivalry between the accused persons and Gram Panchayat President. He would further contend that, there was no material to connect the accused persons with regard to the alleged crime and the offences alleged against the petitioners/accused are bailable in nature, except the offence punishable under section 353 of Indian Penal Code. Even the punishment prescribed for the offences under section 353 of Indian Penal Code is two years. The petitioners are law abiding citizens having land and house properties at Gobbewad 5 Tq:Sindagi Dist: Vijayapur and they are agriculturist by occupation as such there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Therefore sought to allow the anticipatory bail petition.
5. Per contra, Sri.Mallikarjun Sahukar learned H.C.G.P appearing for state/respondent vehemently contended that, in the complaint, the complainant has specifically stated that one month back Ramesh/accused No.1 has requested him to get a bogus bill for the construction of toilet and the same was refused by the complainant and also warned accused No.1 that if he insists again, he will inform the President of Gram Panchayat. Therefore accused No.1 became angry and in that context, all the accused persons joined together and on 17-02-2018 assaulted and kicked the complainant who became unconscious. The complainant is a Government official, there is no 6 question of enmity between the complainant and the accused persons. The act of the accused persons is nothing but to obstruct the Government official to discharge his duty impartially. Therefore he sought to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perusal of the complaint carefully, it clearly depicts that, accused No.1 one month back approached the complainant/PDO and forced him to give bogus bill for construction of the toilet constructed by the accused No.1 and the same was refused. Therefore, accused No.1 became angry and threatened the complainant, the said incident might have provoked the accused No.1 and others. Therefore , they have assaulted the complainant and kicked on 17-02-2018. On the basis of the complaint filed by the PDO /complainant, the jurisdictional police have registered a case in crime No.58/2018 against the 7 accused for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 353, 324, 504, 506 R/w Sec.149 of Indian Penal Code. Though all the offences alleged against the petitioners /accused are exclusively triable by the court of Magistrate, except the offence punishable under section 353 of Indian Penal Code, all the other offences are bailable one as contended by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners. The fact remains that, act of the accused persons assaulting the P.D.O who is a Government official during the course of his official duty is nothing but obstructing the Government official to discharge his duty impartially, they have no business to assault or kick the complainant/PDO, if there is any mistake on the part of the complainant, it is for the petitioners/accused to report the same before the higher authority against the complainant/PDO and they cannot man-handle the Government official. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel appearing for petitioners/accused that, merely because all other 8 offences are bailable they are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be accepted.
7. The complaint clearly depicts that, the incident occurred on account of accused No.1/Ramesh who demand to give bogus bill by the complainant for construction of toilet and not other accused persons. Accused Nos.2 & 3 they have come to picture only subsequently in fact there is no complaint against accused No.3 Mohammed Patel S/o Hasan Patel, but they have included in the FIR, because in the complaint mentioned accused No.1 and others, prima-facie there is no material against the accused Nos.2 & 3, except accused No.1 who is the star of the incident, since the other offences except the offence punishable under section 353 of Indian Penal Code are bailable offences. Therefore accused Nos.2 & 3 are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Insofar as accused No.1 who is the star of 9 the incident on whose instance the incident took place and who demanded to prepare bogus bill is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. It is also worth-while to state here that, when a Government official who is discharging his official duty, when the first accused demanded to issue bogus bill, the same was refused by the complainant is not a ground to assault the complainant/PDO in the public place. Therefore, accused No.1 is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. However it is open for him, after surrender to file regular bail before the concerned court in accordance with law.
8. For the reasons stated above, the bail petition filed by the accused No.1 under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected as devoid of merits.
9. Insofar as the bail petition filed by the peitioner/accused Nos.2 & 3 under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure deserves to be allowed, in view of 10 the reasons stated supra, that there are no allegations against them, it is mentioned in the complaint, except they joined alongwith accused No.1. Therefore, they are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.58/2018 of Sindagi police station subject to following conditions:
1) The petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
2) The petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 shall mark their attendance before the respondent
- police/Investigating Officer on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m to 5.00 p.m. for a 11 period of three months or till filing of the charge sheet which-ever is earlier.
3) The petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 shall not indulge in any criminal activity during pendency of Crime No.58/2018.
4) The petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses and thereby hamper the investigation.
5) The petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 shall surrender before the jurisdictional police within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and execute the bond in terms of the order.
6) The petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 shall cooperate with the investigation and they shall not leave the Vijayapur District without prior permission for the concerned Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE MWS CT:VK