Karnataka High Court
Navyashree vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2023
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20011
CRL.P No. 311 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 311 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
NAVYASHREE,
D/O RAMACHANDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT KARIKALADODD,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIRAGUPPI ALLAYYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
by VINUTHA B S
Location: High
HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION,
Court of BENGALURU - 560 001,
Karnataka
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. RAJKUMAR TAKALE,
S/O DONDIBA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO. 53,
VIDYANAGAR,
BELAGAVI
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20011
CRL.P No. 311 of 2023
BELAGAVI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 590 019
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR1;
SRI. K B NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 06.12.2022 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.11141/2022 C/W CRL.MISC.NO.10407/2022
PASSED BY THE XLV. ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) AND CANCEL THE ANTICIPATORY
BAIL GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.7528/2022 PASSED BY THE LXV ADDL.CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 354C OF IPC AND SEC.66(e) OF I.T ACT 2000,
REGISTERED CASE IN CR.NO.104/2022 BY THE RESPONDENT
POLICE AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HIGH GROUNDS
POLICE TO ARREST THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN THE ABOVE
CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Grant of anticipatory bail to respondent No.2/accused by the learned Session Judge in Crl. Misc. No.7528/2022 is sought to be cancelled by the petitioner/complainant on the ground that the accused has misused the liberty granted to him and violated the conditions.
2. Contention has been raised that subsequent to the release of respondent No.2, he has held life threat to the petitioner and in this connection she has lodged a complaint at -3- NC: 2023:KHC:20011 CRL.P No. 311 of 2023 Channapatna Town Police Station and a case is also registered in Crime No.103/2022 for offences punishable under Sections 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short).
[
3. The petitioner and respondent No.2 seem to be entangled with several disputes. There are complaints lodged against each other and one of such complaints lodged by the petitioner against respondent No.2, is registered in Crime No.108/2022 of APMC Yard Police Station, Belagavi alleging various offences under the IPC including an offence under Section 376(2)(n) and also under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
4. The material placed on record would reveal that in the said case, respondent No.2 was enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Darward Bench in Crl.P. No.102294/2022 vide order dated 12.09.2022. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Criminal Diary No.29750/2022) wherein, the Apex Court dismissed the said SLP vide order dated 26.09.2022. Further, Crl.P No. -4- NC: 2023:KHC:20011 CRL.P No. 311 of 2023 103249/2022 filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail also came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2023.
5. It is seen that even prior to registration of Crime No.108/2022 by the APMC Yard Police, there was a complaint lodged by respondent No.2 on 18.07.2022 against the petitioner registered in Crime 105/2022, alleging offences punishable under Sections 384, 448, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC before the said Police Station. It is submitted that the Police have submitted a 'B' report in the said case. The fact remains that respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on 18.07.2022 and subsequently on 23.07.2022, petitioner lodged a complaint against him before the said Police Station alleging offences under the IPC as well as under the Information Technology Act, 2000. Grant of anticipatory bail in the said case has been set at rest, since the SLP filed by the petitioner challenging the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
6. Insofar as the present case is concerned, petitioner is seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to -5- NC: 2023:KHC:20011 CRL.P No. 311 of 2023 respondent No.2 by the Sessions Court in Crime No. 104/2022 registered by High Grounds P.S., Bengaluru on the ground that he has violated the conditions by holding threats to the petitioner.
7. The petitioner as well as the State preferred separate petitions before the Sessions Court seeking cancellation of bail in Crl.Misc. No.11141/2022 and Crl.Misc. No.10407/2022. The learned Sessions Judge having appreciated the contentions raised by both the parties has dismissed the petitions, by a common order dated 16.12.2022.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would strongly contend that registration of case against respondent No.2 by the Channapatna Police in Crime No. 103/2022 subsequent to grant of anticipatory bail is a valid ground for cancellation of bail and therefore contends that the order rejecting the prayer seeking cancellation of bail by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:20011 CRL.P No. 311 of 2023
9. I have Perused the averments of the complaint filed by the petitioner leading to the registration of Crime No.104/2022 at High Grounds Police Station. The police have registered the said case for offence punishable under Section 354C of IPC and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Charge sheet has been filed in the said case. I have also Perused the conditions imposed by the learned sessions Judge in Crl.Misc No. 7528/22 dated 06.08.2022, while releasing respondent No.2 on anticipatory bail. One of the conditions stipulates that he shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall not intimidate the complainant. In the subsequent complaint dated 19.10.2022 registered in Crime No.103/2022 at Channapatna Town P.S., on the basis of which the petitioner is seeking cancellation of bail, it is alleged that the petitioner/complainant has received threatening calls from different mobile numbers and she is receiving such threatening calls every day. In the complaint, several mobile/sim numbers have been mentioned, which according to the learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not belong to the said respondent. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that respondent No.2 is -7- NC: 2023:KHC:20011 CRL.P No. 311 of 2023 intimidating the complainant by making calls from different sim numbers and through others. However, the investigation is pending. Merely because a complaint has been now lodged against respondent No.2, making certain allegations and a case has been registered against him, that itself is not a ground to cancel the bail already granted to him unless and until it is substantiated by some credible evidence. At this stage, it cannot be said that it was this petitioner, who has made those calls through others or that he has induced or threatened the complainant etc.
10. The learned Sessions Judge while considering the prayer seeking cancellation of bail has referred to the judgments pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the principles laid down for cancellation of bail. It is a settled law that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case and cancellation of bail already granted have to be considered and dealt with different basis. Cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary to cancel the bail already granted. In the case on hand, the complaint lodged by the petitioner against respondent No.2 is still under investigation and therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 has violated -8- NC: 2023:KHC:20011 CRL.P No. 311 of 2023 any of the conditions imposed against him while he was enlarged on bail. No grounds are made out to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2. Petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT: BHK