Karnataka High Court
Chethan G @ Chethan Kannadiga vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6044
CRL.P No. 587 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 587 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. CHETHAN G @ CHETHAN KANNADIGA
S/O GIREESH B V
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1441/3
9TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN RAOD,
K.T.J NAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIREESHA R.J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GANDHINAGARA POLICE STATION
AZAD NAGAR CIRCLE,
Digitally DAVANGERE,
signed by REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
LAKSHMI T HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: BENGALURU-560001.
High Court ...RESPONDENT
of Karnataka (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CR.NO.129/2023 OF GANDHI NAGAR P.S.,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 384, 392,
323, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DAVANAGERE.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6044
CRL.P No. 587 of 2024
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
DATE OF RESERVED THE ORDER : 08.02.2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER :13.02.2024
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No.120/2023 registered at Gandhinagar Police Station, Davanagere against accused Nos.1 to 4, for the offence punishable under Section 384, 392, 323, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1.
3. The gist of the complaint lodged by one Syed Akbar Ali son of Dada Peer Sab is that, he along with four others started Global Education and Welfare Foundation in 2017-18 under which he is running Global Public School. The school has imparted education to the students of more -3- NC: 2024:KHC:6044 CRL.P No. 587 of 2024 than 5000 families and currently imparting education to more than 350 students.
4. It is alleged that the accused persons have been torturing the complainant by making extortion calls. On 25.10.2023, petitioner/accused No.1 - Chetan Kannadiga called him over phone and questioned as to whether he is aware of the complaint lodged against the school with the education department and asked him to meet him near the IB. When the complainant met him on 26.10.2023, he demanded Rs.5,00,000/- for withdrawing the complaint and threatened him saying that if the said amount was not paid, he will see that the school is closed like how they have closed one Vision Wisdom School. Once again in the afternoon he met the complainant and demanded the amount and after negotiation brought down the demand to Rs.3,50,000/- and forcibly snatched a sum of Rs.10,000/- from his pocket. Again on 30.10.2023, he came near the school along with his followers and trespassed into the school, assaulted the staff and abused -4- NC: 2024:KHC:6044 CRL.P No. 587 of 2024 the teachers. Once again on 01.11.2023 he came near the school in his TVS NTORQ bearing Registration No.KA- 17-HM-0207 and abused the staff and threatened that if the amount demanded by him is not paid then he will get the school closed. On 08.11.2023 he made whatsapp call to the complainant threatening him with dire consequences if any complaint is lodged.
5. The complainant has alleged that the petitioner/accused No.1 has been making calls to him from different numbers and making whatsapp calls demanding money etc and torturing him. Further, it is alleged that the petitioner has illegally trespassed into the school premises and abused the staff and teachers and assaulted and threatened them with dire consequences etc.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He contends that the entire allegations are false and baseless and the police have purposely implicated the petitioner. He contends that -5- NC: 2024:KHC:6044 CRL.P No. 587 of 2024 there is an ordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the complaint and the petitioner has never demanded any amount as alleged by the complainant. He contends that accused Nos.2 to 4 named in the FIR have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and there is a threat of arrest for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions. Accordingly he has sought to allow the petition.
7. Per contra the learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the prayer seeking bail contending that the petitioner is not only a habitual offender but a rowdy sheet is also opened against him in Davanagere Town Police Station. He contends that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, whereas against other accused persons, omnibus allegations are made and therefore, they are granted bail.
8. The learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that the petitioner is also an accused in -6- NC: 2024:KHC:6044 CRL.P No. 587 of 2024 Crime No.12/2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 341, 143, 149 and 283 of IPC and Crime No.52/2017 registered for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 341, 324, 355, 440, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC, both registered at Davanagere Extension Police Station, Davanagere.
9. The learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the police have registered false cases against the petitioner, just because he is a member of Hindu Jagarana Vedike.
10. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that accused No.2 was granted bail in criminal petition No.13756/2023 by an order dated 11.01.2024 and accused Nos.3 and 4 were granted bail in criminal petition No.311/2024 by an order dated 23.01.2024. While allowing the petitions, it is observed by this Court that omnibus allegations are made against the said accused persons, whereas the main allegations are against accused No.1 i.e., the petitioner herein. Hence, grant of bail to -7- NC: 2024:KHC:6044 CRL.P No. 587 of 2024 accused Nos.2 to 4 is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Principle of parity is therefore, not applicable to him.
11. It is specifically averred in the complaint that this petitioner has been making extortion calls to the complainant demanding money and he demanded Rs.5,00,000/- to withdraw the complaint. He then brought down the demand to Rs.3,50,000/- and snatched a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant etc. Even more serious allegations are made that he along with his followers trespassed into the school premises, abused the lady teachers and assaulted the staff etc. The complainant has specifically mentioned about the various dates on which the said acts are committed by the petitioner. It is clearly stated in the complaint that the petitioner has threatened the complainant that he will not be left alive, if complaints were to be lodged. Hence, any delay in lodging the complaint itself would not be sufficient to hold that the complaint is false. Complainant has no enmity with the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:6044 CRL.P No. 587 of 2024 petitioner. It can be seen that being fed up with the torture and threat given by the petitioner, the complainant has gathered some courage and lodged the complaint against the petitioner/accused No.1 and his followers.
12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an accused in two more cases stated supra. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and the entire allegations are false etc cannot be accepted. In the case on hand there is a prima facie case against him. Investigation is under progress. The petitioner has been creating fear atmosphere among the students, parents, staff and teachers. Grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner will therefore give a wrong signal to the Society. Considering the nature of allegations and the material on record, the petitioner is not entitled for the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
Petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE HB/-