Karnataka High Court
Gangaramsingh S/O.Late Narasingbanu vs Tippanna Mallappa Banasode on 23 June, 2022
Author: K. Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100972/2021
C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.100970/2021,
100971/2021 AND 100973/2021
IN CRL. P. NO.100972/2021:
BETWEEN:
GANGARAMSINGH S/O. LATE NARASINGBANU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & ADVOCATE,
R/O. HATCHOLLI VILLAGE,
TQ. SIRUGUPPA, BALLARI DISTRICT - 583121.
.. PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S. G. KADADAKATTI, ADV. AND
SRI. LINGESH V. KATTIMATI, ADV.)
AND:
1. N. MAHABALESHWARAPPA
S/O. RAJASHEKHARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC: MANAGING DIRECTOR,
R.S.S.S.N. HATCHOLLI,
R/O. SIRUGUPPA,
BALLARI DISTRICT - 583121.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY P.S.I.,
SIRAGUPPA POLICE STATION,
BALLARI DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY
2
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
DHARWAD HIGH COURT BUILDING.
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., ADV FOR R1;
SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRIME NO.216/2020
AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2021 PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN
CRL.MISC.NO.687/2020 PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 149, 419, 420,
467, 471, 465, 468, 447 OF IPC BY CANCELLING THE ANTICIPATORY
BAIL GRANTING IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.1 BY ALLOWING THIS
PETITION.
IN CRL. P. NO.100970/2021:
BETWEEN:
GANGARAMSINGH S/O. LATE NARASINGBANU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & ADVOCATE,
R/O. HATCHOLLI VILLAGE,
TQ. SIRUGUPPA, BALLARI DISTRICT - 583121.
.. PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S. G. KADADAKATTI, ADV. AND
SRI. LINGESH V. KATTIMATI, ADV.)
AND:
1. P.M. CHANDRASHARAIAH
S/O. LATE MAHANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
EX.M.L.A.,
R/O. SADASHIVA NAGAR,
SIRUGUPPA TALUKA,
BALLARI DIST - 583121.
2. H. K. MALLIKARJUNAIAH
S/O. LATE H.K. DUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
ADVOCATE,
R/O. BEHIND SUGAR FACTORY COLONY,
3
SIRUGUPPA TALUKA,
BALLARI DIST - 583121.
3. DR. SIDDABASAPPA
S/O. LATE KALYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RTD. PROFESSOR,
R/O. NEAR MININ VIDHANASOUDHA,
KALABURGI-585102.
4. SUDHEER S/O. ASHOK BINGE
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MALLIKARJUNA NAGAR,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
5. C. A. BALANKAR
S/O. AMBAJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RTD, DY. S.P.,
R/O. MALLIKARJUNA NAGAR,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
6. SMT. DILSHAD
W/O. K.M. YUSUF SAB,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEAR,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. CHITRADURGA-577501.
7. K.M. YUSUF SAB
S/O. KHAJI HUSSAIN,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RTD., POLICE OFFICER,
R/O. CHITRADURGA - 577501.
8. BASAVARAJ AVANTHI
S/O. VEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RTD., POLICE OFFICER,
R/O. KOTTUR,
BALLARI DIST-583121.
9. M. CHANNA BASAVANNA GOUDA
4
S/O. M. VIRUPAKSHA GOUDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HATCHOLLI VILLAGE,
SIRUGUPPA TALUKA,
BALLARI DIST - 583121.
10. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY P.S.I.,
SIRAGUPPA POLICE STATION,
BALLARI DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY,
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
DHARWAD HIGH COURT BUILDING.
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., ADV FOR R1 TO 9;
SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R10)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRIME NO.216/2020
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2021 PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN
CRL.MISC.NO.654/2020 PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 149, 419, 420,
467, 471, 465, 468, 447 OF IPC BY CANCELLING THE ANTICIPATORY
BAIL TO RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 9 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
IN CRL. P. NO.100971/2021:
BETWEEN:
GANGARAMSINGH S/O. LATE NARASINGBANU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & ADVOCATE,
R/O. HATCHOLLI VILLAGE,
TQ. SIRUGUPPA, BALLARI DISTRICT - 583121.
.. PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S. G. KADADAKATTI, ADV. AND
SRI. LINGESH V. KATTIMATI, ADV.)
AND:
1. SIDDAIAH H.K.
5
S/O. MAHANTAIAH,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HATCHOLLI VILLAGE,
SIRUGUPPA TALUKA,
BALLARI DIST - 583121.
2. SATISH BABU
S/O. RAMA RAO,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: PART TIME LECTURER,
R/O. SADASHIV NAGAR,
SIRUGUPPA TALUKA,
BALLARI DIST - 583121.
3. MADANKUMAR D.
S/O. RAMA RAO,
AGE: 68 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SADASHIV NAGAR,
SIRAGUPPA,
DIST: BALLARI - 583121.
4. BASAVARAJ JULIKATTI S.
S/O. SHIVALLINGAPPA JULIKATTI,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
R/O. BEHIND SRIRAMULU HOUSE,
SIRAGUPPA ROAD,
DIST: BALLARI - 583121.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY P.S.I.,
SIRAGUPPA POLICE STATION,
BALLARI DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY,
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD - 590011.
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADV FOR R2 to R4
SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R5;
R1 - SERVED)
6
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRIME NO.216/2020
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2021 PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN
CRL.MISC.NO.658/2020 PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 149, 419, 420,
467, 471, 465, 468, 447 OF IPC BY CANCELLING THE ANTICIPATORY
BAIL TO RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
IN CRL. P. NO.100973/2021:
BETWEEN:
GANGARAMSINGH S/O. LATE NARASINGBANU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & ADVOCATE,
R/O. HATCHOLLI VILLAGE,
TQ. SIRUGUPPA, BALLARI DISTRICT - 583121.
.. PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S. G. KADADAKATTI, ADV. AND
SRI. LINGESH V. KATTIMATI, ADV.)
AND:
1. TIPPANNA MALLAPPA BANASODE
S/O. MALLAPPA BANASODE
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER PCORD BANK,
(PLD BANK),
SIRAGUPPA BRANCH,
R/O. SIRAGUPPA,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY P.S.I.,
SIRAGUPPA POLICE STATION,
BALLARI DISTRICT BY,
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
DHARWAD HIGH COURT BUILDING.
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., ADV,
SRI. PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADV. AND
SRI. SHARANABASAVARAJ C., ADV FOR R1)
SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R2)
7
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRIME NO.216/2020
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2021 PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN
CRL.MISC.NO.671/2020 PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 149, 419, 420,
467, 471, 465, 468, 447 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Criminal Petition Nos.100972/2021, 100970/2021, 100971/2021 and 100973/2021 are filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity) for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents/accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10 to 12 and 16 to 21 by the learned Sessions Judge i.e. learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari in Crime No.216/2020 registered by the Siraguppa police for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 447, 471 and 465 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for brevity).
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents/accused as well 8 as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, on the complaint of one Sri. Gangaram Singh, the police registered a case on 10.11.2020 alleging that the accused persons are stated to be not the owners of the land but have also created the documents in the name of the poor farmers and they mortgaged the property and already obtained loan of Rs.60,00,000/- and odd from PLD bank. Under the guise of irrigation project, they have laid the pipelines for lifting water without obtaining permission from the departments like irrigation department or from the BESCOM for drawing the electricity and thereby created the documents and cheated the public. Hence, prayed for taking action against the respondents. After registering the case, the accused persons, by filing separate petitions, approached the learned Sessions Judge for granting anticipatory bail. After calling for objection by the learned public prosecutor, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the petitions by granting anticipatory bail. Being aggrieved by the same, the 9 complainant has filed these petition for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the accused have created documents in the name of the farmers but have purchased and mortgaged the same to the bank and they have already obtained loan of Rs.60,00,000/- from the bank. They have laid pipelines and are lifting water without obtaining permission from the Water Resource Department and are drawing the electricity connection without obtaining permission from the Electricity Board. The learned Sessions Judge, without considering all these aspects, has granted anticipatory bail to the respondents/accused, which is not correct. The reason given by the learned Sessions Judge is nothing but perverse and liable to be set aside. The respondents are required for custodial interrogation as they have not only used the property of the complainant for laying the pipeline but also used others lands without obtaining permission from any of the public departments and therefore, they shall be sent to judicial custody till completion of investigation. Hence, 10 prayed for allowing the petition by canceling the bail granted to the respondents.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the accused persons all together formed union about 21 years back for the purpose of lifting water for supply to the poor farmers and they all formed a firm and obtained loan of Rs.66,00,000/- thereafter they lifted the water and utilizing water for irrigation purpose. The complainant is also the beneficiary of the lifted water by the accused persons. The complaint is filed after 21 years of the incident. Even the entire loan amount has been refunded as on 30.10.2008 itself and a certificate is also issued by the banker and with an ulterior motive and to harass, the complainant has filed these petitions. Even otherwise, the learned Sessions Judge has considered all these aspects at the time of granting anticipatory bail by giving findings in the order. Hence, there is no necessity to cancel the bail as they are co-operating with the investigating officer in the investigation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
11
6. Learned Government Pleader was also directed to get a report from the Investigating Officer as to whether accused persons were abiding the conditions of the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the accused persons are appearing before the Investigating Officer and are co-operating in the investigation and they have not violated any of the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge.
7. The submission of the Government Pleader is placed on record. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.
8. Admittedly, the compliant came to be filed in the year 2020 whereas the alleged incident is stated to have occurred in the year 1999. The allegations are, the accused persons have created false documents and by impersonating the farmers they have obtained loan from the bank and lifted the water from the river and distributed the same to the farmers without obtaining any permission from any of the public department or the Government and even laid pipeline in the land of the complainant also obtained electricity connection without permission from public authorities. 12
9. On perusal of the allegations, of course laying water pipeline for lifting water specially to the farmers is not in dispute. The loan obtained by the accused persons has been discharged as per the certificate dated 30.10.2008. Laying of pipeline is in the land of the petitioner and he is also a beneficiary of the water lifted by the accused persons apart from the farmers of the said village. they are distributing the water for payment from 10 to 15 years. Of course, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by laying of the pipeline in his land, he could have objected the same and lodged a complaint. Without doing so, after 21 years, this complaint came to be filed. The police are required to do a detailed investigation and have to collect the documents and other materials etc. it takes much time for the investigating officer to submit a final report to the court. Apart from that, the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and triable by the Magistrate. The learned sessions Judge, while granting bail, has considered all these aspects and relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of A.G. Jayanna v. The State of Karnataka reported in 2012 Cr.R.597(Kant) wherein it is held as under:
13
"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - Allegation of misappropriation - Complaint lodged after
10 years - Very allegation that commission of offence was discovered at the earliest in year 2003 but complaint was lodged only recently is itself sufficient to enable petitioner to seek anticipatory bail - Commission of offence is not of recent origin and ahs gathered dust over the years - Inaction on part of employer of petitioner is inexplicable - Petition allowed."
10. Therefore, after considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has recently granted anticipatory bail to the accused by imposing certain conditions and also directed the accused to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days and to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for the purpose of investigation. As per the report of the learned Government Pleader, the accused have complied the order and they are appearing before the investigating Officer.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court that granting bail is one thing but cancellation of bail is very serious one. Unless, the accused misused the liberty, commits similar offence or violate any of the conditions of bail, the Court can cancel the bail and apart from this, if the findings of the learned Sessions Judge is perverse then only Court can interfere and set aside the 14 bail order. Otherwise, the Court shall not interfere. Such being the case, I do not find any special reason or perverse finding rendered by the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents/accused.
12. Therefore, the petitions are devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the criminal petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv