Karnataka High Court
Smt. Anasuya W/O. Kubendra Sopin vs Shri Mahantesh Rudrappa Sopin on 2 June, 2023
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100625 OF 2023
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100626 OF 2023
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100625/2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANASUYA W/O. KUBENDRA SOPIN,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KHODANPUR, TAL: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. RUDRAPPA BHIMARAYAPPA SOPIN,
CHANDRASHEKAR AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI R/O: KHODANPUR, TAL: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI- 591115.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Date: 2023.06.07 2. SHRI. SIDDARODH DODDAPPA KURI,
11:17:15 -0700
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KHODANPUR, TAL: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI- 591115.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD,
THROUGH DODDAWAD POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI- 580002.
-2-
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R2;
SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R3)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 (2) OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CANCEL REGULAR BAIL GRANTED TO
RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2/ACCUSED NO. 6 AND 7 BY THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE-BELAGAVI IN CRL.MISC NO. 165/2023
IN GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE RESPONDENTS
NO.1 AND 2 FOR O/P/U/SEC. 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324,
307, 506 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC, THE PETITIONER HEREIN IS
BEFORE THIS HON BLE COURT BY WAY OF THIS PETITION.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100626/2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANASUYA W/O. KUBENDRA SOPIN,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KHODANPUR, TAL: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI- 591117.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. MAHANTESH RUDRAPPA SOPIN,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KHODANPUR, TAL: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI- 591117.
2. SHRI. VIVEKANAND MAHANTESH SOPIN,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KHODANPUR, TAL: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI- 591117.
3. SHRI. MALLIKARJUN MAHANTESH SOPIN,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
BAILHONGAL VIDYA VARDHAK SANGHA
DEGREE COLLEGE,
R/O: KHODANPUR, TAL: KITTUR,
-3-
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
DIST- BELAGAVI- 591117.
4. SHRI. NAGABUSHAN MAHANTESH SOPIN,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
BAPUJI INDEPENDENT P.U. COLLEGE
BAILHONGAL DEGREE COLLEGE,
R/O: KHODANPUR, TAL: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI- 591117.
5. SHRI. SHIVAKUMAR @KUMAR BASAVARAJ
@HAWALDAR, AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGE,
KITTUR, R/O: HIRENANDIHALLI,
NOW AT KHODANPUR,
TAL: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI- 591117.
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD,
THROUGH DODDAWAD POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI- 591117.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5;
SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R6)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 (2) OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CANCEL REGULAR BAIL GRANTED TO
ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 5 RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 BY THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE-BELAGAVI IN CRL.MISC NO. 166/2023
IN GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE RESPONDENTS
NO.1 TO 5 FOR O/P/U/SEC. 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324,
307, 506 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC, THE PETITIONER HEREIN IS
BEFORE THIS HON BLE COURT BY WAY OF THIS PETITION TO
CANCEL THE REGULAR BAIL GRANTED TO RESPONDENTS.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
ORDER
Heard Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri. R.H.Angadi for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and learned High Court Government Pleader Smt.Girija S. Hiremath for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The present petitions are filed under Section 439(2)of Cr.P.C with the following prayers:- In Crl.P.No.100625/2023
"To cancel regular bail granted to respondent Nos.1 to 7/accused Nos.6 and 7 by the judgment and order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge- Belagavi in Criminal Misc. No.165/2023 in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 506 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code ."
-5-CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023 In Crl.P.No.100625/2023
" To cancel regular bail granted to respondents/accused Nos.1 to 5 by the judgment and order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge- Belagavi in Criminal Misc.No.166/2023 in granting bail to the respondents Nos.1 to 5 for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 506 r/w section 149 of Indian Penal Code."
3. The brief facts of the cases are as under :-
A complaint came to be lodged stating that respondent Nos.1 to 7 and others have assaulted the petitioner on 27/01/2023. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner, a case came to be registered in Crime No.12/2023 by Dodawada Police Station, Belagavi District. After registering the case, the investigation agency as a part of its investigation arrested respondents herein and others on 30.01.2023. A bail application came to be filed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, -6- CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023 Belagavi. Said bail application was contested by the prosecution and after considering all objections of the prosecution, the bail application was filed on
04.02.2023. The said bail application was contested and taking note of the objections of the prosecution and the gravity of the offences alleged against the accused persons, learned Principal District and Sessions Judge by order dated 15.02.2023 granted bail to the respondent Nos.1 to 7.
4. Being aggrieved by the grant of bail, defacto complainant Smt.Anasuya has filed the present petition on the following grounds:
1. It is submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge-Belagavi in Criminal Misc No 165/2023 in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents no 1 and 2 is erroneous, against the law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. The petitioner submits that due to family enmity and also as there is a suit filed for partition and separate possession by the husband of the petitioner, and in order to pressure the petitioner to withdraw the suit filed by her husband, the respondents have threatened and assaulted -7- CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023 the petitioner with deadly weapons due to which the petitioner is admitted in Vijay Ortho and Trauma Center Belagavi, and is fitting for her life due to the criminal activities of the respondents no 1 and 2. Hence for the very said reason the bail granted needs to be cancelled.
3. The Learned Session Judge erred in holding that the petitioner /accused have filed complaint but no such complaint is filed and further respondent No 1 to 5/other accused are indulged in such illegal activities and there are criminal case No. 1417/2021 against accused.
4. The petitioner submits that act of the respondents/accused is very heinous and danger act and is against the society and still the petitioner/victim is under treatment and the petitioner is operated for more than 5 time.
5. The petitioner submits that the respondents no 1 and 2 are very rich and influential persons have many prior criminal antecedents. There are sufficient materials showing involvement of the respondent no 1 and 2 in the offences committed. The I.0 has seized sufficient materials/ objects at the instance of respondent no 1 and 2 which show their involvement in the said crime. The offences committed are serious in nature and hence for the said reasons the bail granted needs to be cancelled
6. The petitioner submits that since the respondent no 1 and 2 are very influential people there is every possibility, they will tamper with the prosecution evidence and also, they might further threaten and assault the family members of the petitioner as there is a suit pending for -8- CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023 partition and separate possession. If the said bail granted is not cancelled there will be grave injustice caused to the petitioners and her family.
7. The petitioner submits that the investigation is yet to be completed and the police are yet to filed the charge sheet. In such circumstances the respondent no 1 and 2 being very powerful and influential people, there is every chance that they will tamper with the evidence and also likely to bribe official to escape punishment. If the said bail granted is not cancelled there will be grave injustice caused to the petitioners and her family.
8. It is submitted that as per the decision of this Honorable Court in Manikantan v. State of Karnataka reported in 2018 SCC Online Kar 1822, wherein a clear observation is made that antecedents of the accused must be considered at the time of bail and the same is liable to be rejected, if the accused is found to be a habitual offender. Herein, the respondent no 1 and 2 are habitual offenders and looking at the horrendous act committed by them on the petitioner, the bail granted is liable to be cancelled as per the decision of this Honorable Court.
9. It is submitted that The Apex Court also in the similar circumstances in the case of Chandrakeshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.932/2016 and State of Bihar v. Md.Shahabuddin in Criminal Appeal No.933/2016 decided on 30.09.2016, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 443 held that the suppression of material facts before the Court regarding the several -9- CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023 criminal antecedents of the accused while obtaining the order of ball makes the aforesaid order vitiated.
10. The petitioner submits that due to the criminal activities of the respondent no 1 and 2 which are inhuman and horrendous, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and is fitting for her life in hospital. The respondent no 1 and 2 have assaulted the petitioner on her head and on other parts of the body which are grievous in nature. The horrendous photographs of the criminal acts committed by the respondent no 1 and 2 on the petitioner and also that the petitioner is taking treatment for such acts in Vijaya Ortho and Trauma Center Belagavi.
11. It is submitted that if the bail granted to respondent no 1 and 2 are not cancelled there is every chance that they might commit the same offence upon the other family members of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has a daughter and there is every threat to her life as can be seen by the acts committed on the petitioner by the respondent no 1 and 2. If the said bail granted is not cancelled there will be grave injustice caused to the petitioners and her family.
12. It is submitted that there are incriminating materials against the respondent no 1 and 2 and also there are materials/objects recovered at the instance of respondent no 1 and 2 and looking at the inhuman and horrendous acts committed by respondent no 1 and 2 their bail
- 10 -CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
granted is liable to be cancelled and they should be immediately taken into police custody.
13. It is submitted that the said offences committed by respondents No.1 and 2 are no bailable in nature. Hence, granting bail is bad in the eyes of law and the said needs to be cancelled in the interest of justice.
14. The petitioner submits that without prejudice the above grounds urged seek the leave of this Hon'ble Court to urge any other additional grounds other than urged in the memorandum of petition
5. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, learned counsel Sri.Vittal S. Teli for the defacto complainant vehemently contended that while approaching the District Court for grant of bail, accused/respondents have suppressed the material facts and obtained an order of grant of bail and therefore, this Court has got ample power to cancel the bail and direct for the re-arrest of the respondents/accused.
6. He also relied upon the Principal of law enunciated in the case of Manikantan V. State of Karnataka reported in 2018 SCC Online KAR 1822
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023 and Chandrakeshwar Prasad V. State of Bihar and another in Crl.A.No.932/2016 and State of Bihar Vs.Md.Shahabuddin in Criminal Appeal No.933/2016 and emphasise that if there is a suppression of material facts by accused in obtaining order of grant of bail. As such grant of bail can be re-considered by the Court and order for cancellation of bail.
7. He further submits that there were other criminal cases against the accused persons were pending which was not brought to the notice of the trial Court and trial Court has considered the present incident as isolated incident and granted bail. Hence, sought to cancel the bail granted.
8. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.R.H.Angadi representing the accused persons in both the petitions contended that bail is granted by learned Principal District Judge as a discretionary order and the same was granted after contest.
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
9. He also emphasised that in the earlier cases also the petitioners were falsely implicated and therefore Court taking note of the merits of the matter granted bail and there is no complaint by the prosecution in this case or in the earlier cases, the petitioners herein have not violated any of the conditions imposed at the time of granting bail and therefore, the petition needs to be dismissed.
10. He further emphasized that this Court while considering the request of defacto complainant for cancellation of the bail cannot act as an appellate authority over the Court which granted the bail; more so having regard to the fact that under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. both District Court and High Court have got concurrent power to entertain the bail request in non-bailable offences.
11. Learned High Court Government Pleader Smt.Girija Hirematt contended that the bail application of the respondents was objected by the prosecution in accordance with law and the material
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023 collected by the investigation agency was part of objection statement and learned Principal District Judge after considering the rival contentions of the parties and after considering the gravity of the offence alleged against the respondents herein passed an order of grant of bail with conditions and there is no complaint that any of the conditions of the bail have been violated. Accordingly, sought for passing suitable orders.
12. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
13. On such perusal of material on record, it is seen that respondents have been accused of the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 506 r/w section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
14. The respondents were arrested on 30.01.2023. Later on, they were enlarged on bail by
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023 order dated 15.02.2023 after contest. The learned Principal District Judge has taken into consideration the nature of injury caused to the victim complainant in the incident and also taking note of relevant records to grant bail by using his discretionary power under Sections 438 and 439 of Criminal Procedure Code granted bail to few accused persons with conditions. The conditions imposed in the bail are as under:
1. They shall appear befo re the investigation officer wi thin a w eek f rom today.
2. They shall mak e themselves available for the interrogation by the investigation officer as and when required.
3. They shall no t tamper or attempt to tamer with the pros ecuti on witnesse s.
4. They shall not involve in any similar offences.
15. Admittedly, there is no complaint that any one of these conditions are violated.
- 15 -
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
16. The investigating agency is proceeding with the investigation and according to the learned HCGP the respondents/accused have co-operated with the investigation agency. The only ground on which the said bail order is sought to be quashed is that the respondents herein have suppressed the pendency of the previous criminal cases pending as against them.
17. It is the argument of the learned counsel Sri.Vittal S. Teli that if the pending criminal cases had been brought to the notice of the learned Prl. District Judge, there would have been possibility of rejection of bail petition and suppression of pendency of earlier criminal cases goes to the very root of the matter in exercising the discretionary power vested with the learned Principal District Judge and sought for cancellation of bail.
18. As could be seen from the material available on record and averments made on behalf of the accused by learned Counsel Sri.R.H.Angadi, fact
- 16 -
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023 remains that earlier criminal cases were not brought to the knowledge of the learned Principal District Judge while granting anticipatory bail and regular bail to the accused/respondents. However, it is also to be noted that prosecution also did not brought it to the notice of learned Principal District Judge about the pendency of the criminal cases.
19. Learned counsel Sri.R.H.Angadi contended that respondents/accused were falsely implicated in the earlier criminal cases and they also been granted bail in the earlier criminal cases and there is no complaint that they have violated any conditions imposed in the bail order in respect of earlier criminal cases. He further argued that mere pendency of few criminal cases would not be a bar for a learned Principal District Judge to exercise his discretionary power in respect of a subsequent crime.
20. This Court finds sufficient force in the said argument. If a person seeks for cancellation of bail
- 17 -
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023 on the ground of suppression of facts, there must also be a violation of the conditions of bail imposed has taken place. In the case on hand, it is not so. From the grounds referred supra, there is no complaint that respondents have violated any of the conditions nor it is the complaint of the defacto complainant that respondents have threatened the complainant and there is no life threat to her.
21. Learned counsel Sri.R.H.Angadi, at this stage submits that respondents have not threatened the complainant at all and they are not going to threaten the complainant in future and they would follow the conditions in accordance with law. If any such contingency arises, the petitioner is having liberty to approach the Court with fresh request for cancellation of bail if really she is the sufferer. His submission is placed on record.
22. There cannot be any dispute as to the principles of law enunciated in the decisions relied on behalf of the petitioner referred supra. However,
- 18 -
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023 facts in those cases are totally different from the facts involved in the present case and complaint made against the accused persons. As such, those decisions are not of much avail for the petitioner in this case to seek cancellation of the bail.
23. With the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that this case is not a fit case where this Court is required to exercise it's discretionary power in canceling the bail granted to the respondents. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petitions are rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE HMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3