Karnataka High Court
Mallikayya S/O Sharanayya Guttedar vs State Of Karnataka By Farahatabad Ps on 8 January, 2016
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201153/2015
BETWEEN:
MALLIKAYYA
S/O SHARANAYYA GUTTEDAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/AT NEAR LAXMI DEVI TEMPLE
CBI COLONY, BEHIND BUS STAND
KALABURAGI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.C. JAKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY FARAHATABAD POLICE STATION
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.S. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETILTION AND DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL, IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.57/2008, FOR
2
THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 32 AND 34, OF THE KARNATAKA
EXCISE ACT, 1989, ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT
FARAHATABAD POLICE, (CC.NO.1415/2009 ON THE FILE OF II
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN & JMFC KALABURAGI). IN THE
INTERST OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.B.C.Jaka, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri.P.S.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent - State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.3 in Crime No.57/2008 (C.C.No.1415/2009) registered by Farahatabad Police Station pending on the file of II Additional JMFC Court, Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of Karnataka Excise Act, 1989.
3
3. Case of the prosecution is that on 22.03.2003 at about 10.30 a.m. near old Petrol Pump situated near Farahatabad Bus Stand accused Nos.1 and 2 along with petitioner were selling illicit liquor without valid licence or permit and in violation of order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kalaburagi and as such raid came to be conducted in the presence of Panchas and illicit liquor worth of Rs.1240/- was seized from the possession of accused persons.
4. It is contention of Sri.B.C.Jaka, leaned counsel appearing for petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated and offence alleged against him was not heinous punishable with death or imprisonment for life and accused Nos.1 and 2 have already been acquitted in C.C.No.1470/2009 and petitioner having permanent roots in the society and also possessed with both movable and immovable property at Kalaburagi and as such he may be enlarged on bail. It also stated 4 that petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions which may be imposed on him by this Court. Hence, he prays for petitioner being enlarged on anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would oppose the prayer contending that since the date of commission of offence, petitioner had absconded and as such split-up charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.1415/2009 and jurisdictional Magistrate had issued NBW and thereafter proclamation also came to be issued against petitioner and as such he came to be apprehended and as such present petition has been filed. Hence, he prays for rejection of the petition.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, it would clearly indicate that undisputedly accused Nos.1 and 2 who have been charged for the same offence as alleged 5 against petitioner have already been acquitted after trial in C.C.No.1470/2009. Perusal of the complaint would indicate that statement made by accused Nos.1 and 2 to the effect that they purchased liquor from the shop of petitioner is the basis for implicating petitioner and said statement is a hearsay statement. Contention raised by learned Advocate for petitioner that petitioner was not aware of pendency of proceedings, at this stage deserves to be accepted.
7. In view of split-up charge sheet having been filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.1415/2009, prosecution will have to establish the quilt of the petitioner at the time of trial independently. Taking into consideration accused Nos.1 and 2 have already been acquitted, this Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following: 6
ORDER
a) Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.
b) Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner in C.C.No.1415/2009 and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court subject to following conditions.
i) Petitioner shall attend jurisdictional Court on all dates of hearing without fail except under unavoidable circumstances;
ii) Petitioner shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner;
iii) Petitioner shall also appear before the jurisdictional police once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. and mark his attendance till conclusion of trial;7
iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdictional Court without express permission;
v) If petitioner violates any one of the conditions, prosecution is at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail;
Sd/-
JUDGE Srt