Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1396 (KAR)

Annu v. State Of Balur Police, Mudigere Tq,

2020-07-14

N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

body2020
JUDGMENT N.K. Sudhindrarao, J. - This matter is taken up through Video Conference today. 2. Learned counsel Sri Girish. B. Baladare, for petitioners and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for respondent are present. 3. The petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioners seek anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 25/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 341, 307, 354 (A), 354 (B), 506 and 504 of IPC, of the respondent Police Station. 4. The date of complaint is 06.04.2020. 5. The substance of the complaint as could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I at Chikkamagaluru in Crl. Misc. No. 54/2020 dated 22.05.2020 is assailed as under: "The brief facts of prosecution case are that the complaint is working as a writer and driver with the owner of the Jerald D'souza's Hadivoni estate since three and half years. On 01.04.2020 are Shiva, resident of Hadivoni colony had committed theft of pepper corns from the said estate and the owner of the estate, the complaint and one Riyaz Khalandar Shafi who was working with the complainant have together lodged a coplaint against the said Shiva before Balur Police and the case has been registered against him. In order to take revenge for lodging the complaint against the Shiva, all the petitioners on 05.04.2020 at about 9.am. have waiter near the Hadivoni estate main gate to caught the complainant. The complainant came in his Boxer bike, Siraj and Riyaz both came in their Deo Scooty and the owner of the estates Jerald D'souza and his Manager Vishalakshi Shetty came in car and they all came near the main gate of estate and at that time they stopped them, abused them in filthy language, threatened to their life, one Dejappa assaulted the complainant on his head with a stone and caused grievous injury. One Annu assaulted the complainant with a stone on his right cheek. One Udaya assaulted him with a stone on his back. One Beera assaulted with a stone to Siraj. One Shivappa assaulted with a stone to Riyaz on his back and hand. Rudra, Annu and Udaya pulled vishalakshi and torn her chudidar top and tried to outrage her modesty. Therefore, the complainant has lodged the police complaint." 6. One Udaya assaulted him with a stone on his back. One Beera assaulted with a stone to Siraj. One Shivappa assaulted with a stone to Riyaz on his back and hand. Rudra, Annu and Udaya pulled vishalakshi and torn her chudidar top and tried to outrage her modesty. Therefore, the complainant has lodged the police complaint." 6. Copy of the petition is served on learned HCGP for respondent. 7. Heard. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are agriculturists and have no bad issues and are law abiding persons. They will suffer irreparable loss and hardship if they are sent to judicial custody. They apprehend arrest and seek relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and seek for anticipatory bail. 9. Learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the application for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the investigation is pending and the petitioners are not co-operative and they are likely to abscond, if they are once enlarged on bail. 10. The learned District Judge has rejected the anticipatory bail application made by the petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. 54/2020 as stated above. 11. The accused persons are stated to have been involved in commission of theft of pepper corns from the estate. It is claimed that there is a delay in lodging the complaint. The learned Trial Judge has observed that they constituted an offence under Section 307 of IPC and sustaining of an injury is not essential. The overt-acts are stated as in the complaint. The petitioners are stated to be agriculturists and they do not have any bad issues. The presence of the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner may as well as be determined during the trial in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. On going through the complaint and context, I do not find any ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners and the same are to be assessed during the course of trial. In the meanwhile, the petitioners are entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail, by imposing suitable conditions. 13. 12. On going through the complaint and context, I do not find any ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners and the same are to be assessed during the course of trial. In the meanwhile, the petitioners are entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail, by imposing suitable conditions. 13. Hence, the Criminal petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioners in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.25/2020 of Balur Police Station shall be released on bail, subject to the petitioner executing a person bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with a surety of a person possessing immovable properties for the likesum. ii) The petitioners-accused shall not terrorize the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner. iii) The petitioners-accused shall not move out of State of Karnataka during the investigation of the case. iv) The petitioners-accused shall not come into contact with any of prosecution witnesses. v) The petitioners-accused shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer of the above case on every First and Fourth Saturday between 08.00 p.m. and 09.00 p.m. until further orders. vi) In case of violation of any conditions, the prosecution is at liberty move the application for cancellation of bail.