Karnataka High Court
Dr. P. Kumareshwar, vs The State Of Karnataka, on 1 March, 2017
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N. Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA
CRL.P. NO.100037/2017
C/W
CRL.P.NO.100038/2017
CRL.P.NO.100039/2017
IN CRL.P. NO.100037/2017
BETWEEN:
DR.P.KUMARESHWAR,
AGE : 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O SHAMALA PLACE,
RAMNAGAR, KESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI-23.
.. PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.L.VANTI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PSI, KESHWAPUR POLICE STATION,
HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY
SPP.HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. RASOOLKHAN S/O NAZEER AHMED,
AGE : 28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVIER,
R/O KULKARNI HAKKAL,
HUBBALLI.
3. MAHAMMAD SALEEM @ SALEEM
S/O HAJARATASAB SAVANUR,
AGE : 39 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
2
R/O GOPANAKOPPA SWAGAT COLONY,
HUBBALLI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1)
(SMT.SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI, ADV., FOR R2 & R3)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
(2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 BY
LEARNED II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
DHARWAD IN SPL.CASE NO.25 OF 2016 REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNSHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 302 201,
120(b) READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2) (5)
OF SC/ST ACT.
IN CRL.P. NO.100038/2017
BETWEEN:
MRS.PRISCELLA ANTONIO
W/O LLOYED ANTOINO,
AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O H.NO.20, BELVANKI COLONY,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-23.
.. PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.L.VANTI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PSI, KESHWAPUR POLICE STATION,
HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY
SPP.HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. SANTOSH S/O GURAPPA CHALWADI,
AGE : 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO.186, RAMANAGAR,
HUBBALLI.
3. GURAPPA S/O SANGAPPA CHALWADI,
AGE : 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
3
R/O 2ND CROSS, RAMNAGAR,
GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI.
4. KIRAN S/O JYASINGH SURYAVANSHI,
AGE : 25 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O 4TH CROSS, RAMNAGAR,
GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI.
5. RAMESH S/O JYASINGH SURYAVANSHI,
AGE : 30 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O 4TH CROSS, RAMNAGAR,
GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI.
6. NAGARAJ S/O HANUMANTAPPA CHALAWADI,
AGE : 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O JAMES LAND, KESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1)
(BY SRI VIDYASHANKAR G DALAWAI ADV., FOR R2 TO R6.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6 BY
LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALI IN CRL.MISC.NO.130/2013
AND CRIME NO.153/2013 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 506 R/W
SECTION 149 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P. NO.100039/2017
BETWEEN:
RAJU S/O DEVENDRAPPA VENDAL,
AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O 1ST CROSS ROAD, RAMNAGAR,
HUBBALLI-23.
.. PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.L.VANTI, ADV.)
4
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PSI, KESHWAPUR POLICE STATION,
HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY
SPP.HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. GURUNATH S/O SANGAPPA CHALWADI,
AGE : 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O 2ND CROSS, RAMNAGAR, GADAG ROAD,
HUBBALLI.
3. SANTOSH S/O GURAPPA CHALWADI,
AGE : 31 YEARS, OCC: REAL ESTATE BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO.186, RAMANAGAR,
HUBBALLI.
4. SATISH S/O GURAPPA CHALWADI,
AGE : 28 YEARS, OCC: REAL ESTATE,
R/O RAMANAGAR, GADAG ROAD,
HUBBALLI.
5. KIRAN S/O JYASINGH SURYAVANSHI,
AGE : 25 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O 4TH CROSS, RAMNAGAR,
GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI.
6. NAGAU @ NAGARAJ
S/O HANUMANTAPPA CHALAWADI,
AGE : 30 YEARS,
OCC: BUILDING MATERIAL SUPLIER,
R/O JAMES LAND, KESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1)
(BY SRI SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI ADV., FOR R2 TO R6.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
(2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6 BY
LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
5
DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALI IN CRL.MISC.NO.64/2011 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148,
324, 307, 302 & 506 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITOINS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These three criminal petitions are filed by the two eyewitnesses and a complainant in different complaints initiated against the respondents herein. The sum and substance of filing of all these petitions is seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners in Spl.SC/ST(CC) No.25/2016, on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Court, Dharwad by order dated 15.09.1916 which is subject matter of Crl.P.No.100037/2017. In Crl.Misc.No.153/2013 on the file of District and Sessions Court, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi, by order dated 19.03.2013 and also in Crl.Misc.No.63/2011 and Crl.Misc.No.64/2011 on the file of District and Sessions Court, Hubballi, which is dated 09.02.2011; which are subject matter of Crl.P.Nos.100038 and 100039 of 2017. All the three petitions are interconnected. 6
2. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.100037/2017 is one P.Kumareshwar who is said to be the complainant in Crime No.193/2016 and complainant in NC No.22/2016 both registered with Keshwapur police and eyewitness in Crime No.14/2013; whereas the Crl.P.No.100038/2017 is by Mrs.Priscella L Antonio W/o Lioyed Antonio, who is complainant in Crime No.14/2013 and herself being complainant in Crime No.16/2016 and also eyewitness in Crime No.53/2016; Whereas Crl.P.No.100039/2017 is by complainant in Crime No.6/2011, he was also witness in S.C.No.1/2005.
3. Background of these petitions are seen in various criminal complaints between the respondents and some of the complainants. When these criminal petitions are filed seeking cancellation of bail granted in favour of accused in several cases, this court sought for particulars from the learned Government Advocate with reference to number of criminal cases which are registered against each of the accused for whom the bail is granted by the sessions 7 court in all the three matters which is under challenge in these criminal petitions.
4. On goring through the same, it is seen that, there is a pattern in which there is a long-standing enmity between two sets of families. One is the family of Gurappa Chalawadi. According to the complainant, the said family is headed by Gurappa Chalawadi who has two sons, namely Santosh and Satish who are said to be actively involved in all kind of criminal activities in the twin cities of Hubballi and Dharwad which includes kidnapping, rioting, matka and various other organized criminal activities.
5. It is also seen that, several criminal cases were registered against this family. This family is said to be having protection of police in all their activities. It is stated that one of the complainant namely Kumareshwar Pillai is also a rowdy sheeter, several cases are registered against him in the year 1990. Though the learned Government Advocate would say that there are cases pending against him even as on today, but he is only able to produce the 8 particulars with reference to cases of 1993 and 1994. They also bring to the notice of this Court the extract of the rowdy sheeter register initiated in his name in Keshwapur police station, Hubballi, on 22.02.1997 and it is stated that the cases are still pending.
6. However, the particulars of all cases are not given. When three criminal petitions are filed challenging grant of bail in favour of the family members of Gurappa Chalawadi which include his sons Santosh G Chalawadi and Satish G Chalawadi and their henchmen Kiran J Suryavamshi, Nagesh Calavadi, Rasool Khan, Md. Saleem, Ramesh S/o Suryanarayana, Nagaraj S/o Hanumanthappa Chalavadi, it is stated that, initially a crime was registered in crime No.6/2011 of Keshwapur police, where the complaint is by one Raju Vendol wherein it is stated that, his father Devendrappa was put to death by the Gurappa's family for the reason that evidence was given by him against the said family in S.C.No.1/2005, where the family members of Gurappa Chalawadi were accused Nos.1 to 3 along with others. Though the death of Devendrappa has 9 taken place due to murder, the police who received the complaint for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC are said to have diluted and charge sheets were filed only for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC in S.C.No.147/2014 and the same is said to be pending. In filing the charge sheet only in respect of Section 307 of IPC trying to demonstrate as if the death is due to natural cause and not because of the attempt on his life.
7. It is also seen that there were series of other cases filed against the family members of Chalawadi which are in Crime No.195/2013, registered with Keshwapur Police for various offences punishable under sections 341,
114. It is also seen that, there are other complaints in Crime No.13/2013 and Crime No.14/2013 which is with reference to the same incident, where offences alleged are under Sections 506, 143, 147, 148 of IPC, which complaint is by Lioyed Antonio, husband of petitioner in Crl.P.No.100038/2017. In this matter also, the police have conducted investigation and filed charge sheet in C.C.No.1045/2013 for the offences punishable under 10 Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 506(2) read with Section 149 of IPC. In this proceedings also the accused are members of Gurappa Chalawadi's family. It is seen that, while recording information of crime in Crime No.14/2013, another crime is registered by Inspector of Police one Sri K.C.Asundi in Crime No.13/2013 under Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act. It is further seen that, there are two more complaints, one is Crime No.16/2016, which is with reference to offences punishable under sections 379, 338, 304-A of IPC. This complaint is by Filomina S Gotte Mokkala. This is registered by Hubballi Traffic Police, where it is revealed that, the son of one of the witness is put to death, as if, it is an accidental death.
8. It is seen that, immediately thereafter with reference to same offence, another report is submitted to the police in Crime No.53/2016 registered with Keshwapur Police for the offence punishable under section 302, 307, 201 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the S.C/S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act which is registered in Spl.C.No.25/2016, for the said offences, 11 against the members of Chalawadi's family and others. It is seen that Crime No.16 and Crime No.53 were clubbed together and charge sheet is filed in Spl.C.no.25/2016. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that there is one more complaint in Crime No.193/2016 against some of the persons who are said to be associates of Chalawadi's family.
9. It is necessary to mention at this juncture that Gurappa Chalawadi and his sons are said to be in judicial custody. It is the case of the petitioner that the Chalawadi family members and senior members of the gang are in custody of police and they have men and material to support in the society to continue the criminal activities as per their instructions. Though they are in jail and the accused persons in Crime No.193/2016 are said to be the henchmen of Chalawadi's family, it is stated none of them are arrested and so far police is still investigating in to the matter. In addition to this one more complaint is registered in N.C.No.22/2016 with reference to offence punishable under section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 12 It is stated that the present NC.No.22/2016 is counter to another NC case registered in NC No.19/2016 which is received on 25.09.2016. In this background it is seen that, the application for bail for these respondents in these petitions were considered in different forum. When all these materials are seen, this court could get a doubt, whether we are living in a civilized society or we are in the midst of predators. It is seen that involvement of all these accused persons in various criminal cases, some of which prayed for bail are already rejected and in which they are facing trial is brought to the notice of this court and also the court below. These people are not ordinary innocent citizens who by turn of events are made to be criminals in a case, which is filed against them and they have all opportunity to establish themselves as innocent.
10. Per contra what is on record would clearly indicate that, the court below was dealing with hard core seasoned criminals, who have taken criminal activity as their day to day life and that some of the complaints are also counter part of the criminal activities. It is surprising 13 that, when so many cases are filed by the complainants and accused against each other, they are pending for consideration for long time the police are dragging their feet to investigate into them, they sit back and enjoy the scenario of the criminal dispute between these two families. They also support tacitly one of them by wrongly registering the case; and/or scaling down the offences in serious complaint by converting cognizable offences into non-cognizable offences; This conduct of police is un- comprehendible to this Court. This clearly indicate that police are taking active participation in either supporting one or the other in all these cases. This is real sorry state of affair so far as police are concerned.
11. When the order impugned in all these three petition is looked into, it is only in one case i.e., in Crl.Mis.130/2013 there is some effort on the part of the prosecutor in bringing to the notice of the court that several complaints are pending against Santosh. However, before the Court below where bail in various other cases were considered in Crl.Misc.No.63/2011 and Crl.Misc.No.64/2011, the prosecution has not even 14 bothered to place all the materials on record to demonstrate that the accused in these proceedings are threat to society and their continuation in either judicial custody or police custody is to the betterment of the society, thereby indicating that the prosecution also hand in glow in trying to get them bail.
12. When the entire material available on record is seen, there are criminal cases in which charge sheets are filed committed to sessions and in the process of trial there is an attempt to eliminate the witnesses and when the said incidents are brought to the notice of the police, they have become as insensitive as they could be in registering these cases as non cognizable cases instead of taking appropriate steps to curb the inter rivalry between the gang and try to ensure that the whole lot of criminals are thrown into the jail either under judicial custody or under police custody, there is no such attempt on the part of the police. Even before the court below i.e., court of Sessions, Hubballi, in Crl.Misc.No.63/2011 and Crl.Misc.No.64/2011 and also Crl.Misc.No.130/2013 on the file of Sessions 15 Court, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi and as well as in S.C & S.T (C.C.) No.25/2016, the Sessions Court Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi has allowed these predators to go on bail, as if their right is more important to the Court and prosecution and not that of the society. Such unconcerned callous attitude on the part of the Courts cannot be tolerated and the orders which are passed and sought to be impugned cannot be continued.
13. Accordingly by allowing these petitions all the bails granted in favour of the accused persons in the said proceedings are set aside. It is made clear that they shall not be entitled to seek bail in any court until the proceedings against them reaches logical end. While concluding, this court would also direct the Keshwapur police to conduct impartial enquiry and if it is found the complainant Kumareshwar Pillai who is said to be rowdy sheeter involved actively in any case, the police should not hesitate for his arrest and he should be taken into custody and produce before the Court and in such an event the Courts also should be cautious to consider his prayer for 16 any of the relief to be sought in the said proceedings. With such observation all these three petitions are disposed of.
14. While resting with the case, this court would warn the police force of Dharwad and Hubballi to be more careful while dealing in such matters and also advice them to take immediate steps to see that all the rowdy elements who are running the activity of mataka, extortion, kidnapping for ransom should be rounded up at the earliest and should be dumped in the jail by initiating proper proceedings against them.
Sd/-
JUDGE EM