Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2273 (KAR)

Lazarus Abraham Lunjala v. State of Karnataka

2019-12-10

P.G.M.PATIL

body2019
ORDER : 1. This is a bail petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.81/2018, Sub Urban Police Station, Dharwad, pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC Court, Dharwd, registered for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 448, 504, 354, 307, 427, 109, 323 r/w 149 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 9/7/2018, the complainant one Kallavva Pujar lodged a complaint before the respondent police. She has alleged in the complaint that she was residing along with her relatives at Kelgeri-Dharwad. She owned a land bearing Block No.89/1B, measuring 1 acre 14 guntas at Kelageri. The said land belongs to herself and her children and children of her brothers, namely, Kallanagouda, Basanagouda and Shankargouda. At the instance of accused No.1, the said property was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- and accused No.2 paid Rs.4,00,000/- as advance on 5/12/2011. The remaining amount was agreed to be paid at the time of sale deed. She has stated that the accused persons got executed a sale deed forcibly. Therefore, she filed a suit bearing O.S. No.221/2017 on the file of the Civil Judge, Dharwad, and thereafter, the said suit was compromised before the Lok Adalath, as the accused agreed to pay the balance consideration amount. She has further stated when she demanded the accused for the payment of balance consideration, they assaulted herself and her family members on 24/1/2015 and in that connection she has filed the complaint and the case was registered in Crime No.242/2017. The complainant has further sated that on 9/7/2018, the accused persons entered her house, dragged her and assaulted her and thereafter, they tied her hands and left her in the well. They demolished their house with the help of JCB. On the basis of the said compliant, the respondent police have registered a case against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner herein and other accused were arrested in the said case. 3. The petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in the FIR has stated hat at no point of time, he was connected with the offences alleged against him. The complainant has already field a complaint and the petitioner and other accused are facing trial in the said case. 3. The petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in the FIR has stated hat at no point of time, he was connected with the offences alleged against him. The complainant has already field a complaint and the petitioner and other accused are facing trial in the said case. The decree passed in the Lok Adalath is not questioned by the complainant. The petitioner was contesting railway election and therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the case. He is neither the purchaser nor the agreement holder of the land of the complainant. The complainant had sustained simple injures and she was discharged on the same day. He is the permanent resident of place shown in the cause title. He is the Central Government employee. He is ready and willing to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by the Court and to furnish adequate surety. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant had sustained simple injures and there is no material to attract the alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC. It is further submitted that the complainant herself and purchaser of the land settled the dispute and decree was passed in Lok Adalth and it has become final. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that several criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner and he is a rowdy sheeter and that in case he is enlarged on bail he may indulge in committing the similar offence. 7. The complaint allegation in the complaint goes to show that there was an agreement to purchase of the land of complainant by accused No.2 and in that connection, there was dispute and subsequently, complainant had filed a civil suit in OS No.221/2012 and the said suit came to be disposed of before the Lok Adalath by settlement and compromise decree was drawn. The complainant has also filed another complaint in respect of the alleged incident dated 24/1/2015 and in that connection Crime No.242/2017 was registered against the petitioner and other accused persons. They are facing trial in the said case. So far as the alleged incident dated 9/7/2018 is concerned, it is submitted that the complainant had sustained simple injury and she was treated and discharged on the same day. They are facing trial in the said case. So far as the alleged incident dated 9/7/2018 is concerned, it is submitted that the complainant had sustained simple injury and she was treated and discharged on the same day. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that rowdy sheet was opened in respect of the petitioner by the police and the order of externment was passed against the petitioner, which has been stayed by this court in Crl.RP.No.100158/2018 by order dated 27/9/2018. The copy of the order is made available for perusal. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not been convicted for any of the criminal cases, which is not disputed by the prosecution. Merely, because several criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, it is not a ground to reject the bail petition. In this regard the learned counsel has relied on the decision in the case of Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2012) 2 SCC 382 . The Apex court in Para No. 10 has observed as follows:- "10. It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of 4 criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." 8. Therefore, at this stage, this Court has to consider whether there is possibility of petitioner fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court and when it is not disputed that the petitioner is a railway employee working in railway office at Hubli and he is residing with his family members, it appears there is no such possibility. 9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing necessary conditions to see that the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not abscond and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing necessary conditions to see that the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not abscond and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The bail petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 81/2018 of Sub Urban Police Station, Dharwad, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, on the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (ii) The petitioner shall appear and mark his attendance before the SHO of Dharwad Sub Urban Police Station, on every 2nd and 4th Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the final report is filed. (iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission. (iv) In case of violation of any of conditions, bail granted is liable to be cancelled.