Karnataka High Court
Ravi Ramappa Jingade vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 June, 2022
Author: K. Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101610 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1 . RAVI RAMAPPA JINGADE
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/O. HALADAKATTA - 581355,
TQ. SIDDAPUR,DIST. U.K
2 . RAMAPPA JINGADE
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/O. HALADAKATTA - 581355,
TQ. SIDDAPUR,DIST. U.K
3 . PAVAN NAIK
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/O. HALADAKATTA - 581355,
TQ. SIDDAPUR,DIST. U.K
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.LINGESH V.KATTEMANE & SRI.S.G.KADADAKATTI ADVs.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH P.S.I. SIDDAPUR POLICE STATION
U. K DISTRICT,
REP BY ADDL. SPP,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH BUILDING DHARWAD - 580011.
..RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL BY DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT-SIDDAPUR POLICE TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS
ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH
CRIME NO.39/2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S
353, 332, 341, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS
PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.' for short) for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.39/2022 of Siddapur Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 332, 341, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC', for short).
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that one Srishaila Gangappa Upparatti, CPC-1219, filed complaint on 29.03.2022, alleging that himself and one Jattappa-CPC-1029 3 were on patrolling duty at Siddapur town on 28.03.2022 and when they came near house of accused persons, they found one Maruti Omini parked , its head light and inside lights are on. When he asked who parked this car, then accused nos.1 to 4 said to have abused the police in filthy language and abused them and thereby shown criminal force on them and prevented them in discharging their official duty and they also threatened to kill them. At that time another CPC no.1029 Jattappa was telephoned to police station. By seeing that, all the accused ran away in their omni car. Thereafter, complaint came to be registered against accused nos.1 to 4. Accused no.1 was arrested by Police and he is said to be released on bail. Present petitioners are accused nos.2 to 4, apprehending their arrest in the case on hand. Hence, they approached Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected. Hence, they are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely 4 implicated by the Police. There are no overt acts against this petitioners except abusing in filthy language. Entire allegations are against accused no.1 who has already been granted bail by this Court. Petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. Per contract, learned HCGP has seriously objected the bail petition and contended that these petitioners and their family members are habitual offenders. There are more than 20 cases registered against them. They always target the police, used to abuse the Police in filthy language and used to assault the police. They involved in anti-social activities and involve in gambling cases. Therefore, if they granted with bail, again they commit the similar offence and tamper prosecution witnesses. Hence, prays to reject the bail petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP, perused the records. On perusal of the records, admittedly names of these petitioners 5 found in FIR. Main allegations are against the accused no.1, but these accused persons are relatives of accused no.1. Accused no.2 is son of accused no.1. Complainant has stated that a vehicle was parked in front of house of accused persons. When they questioned by Police who are on night patrolling duty, accused persons attacked the police with clubs and abused in filthy language and shown criminal force on them. This offence attracts sections 353 and 332 of IPC. Of-course alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and accused no.1 against whom main allegations are there has already released on bail by Magistrate/trial court. However, granting bail especially, while safeguarding the liberty of a person, Court has to consider whether they will misuse the bail by committing the similar offences and threatening the witnesses are one of the basic consideration for grant of bail.
7. Coming to the objection of learned HCGP, it reveals that the accused family was involved in similar case in crime no.146/2012, for the offence punishable under Section 6 341, 353 and 506 of IPC. That apart, from the year 2011 onwards, there were number of cases under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act, registered against the accused family for gambling, matka and other cases. Totally 22 cases were registered against petitioners family including case under section 107 of Cr.P.C. for disturbing the public peace and tranquility and most of the cases were under Section 78(3) of KP Act and another case is for showing criminal force on the Police in the year 2012 and the present case is filed under sections 353 and 332 of IPC for assaulting the Police when they are in duty especially when they are in uniform.
8. Therefore, considering the background of the petitioners and their family, it reveals that they are continuously involved in criminal cases from the year 2011 to 2022 and therefore, there is every possibility of these petitioners may commit similar offences and tamper prosecution witnesses is not ruled out, if they are granted with bail.
7
9. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, Criminal petition is dismissed. Petitioners may surrender and seek regular bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE HMB