Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1851 (KAR)

K. Narayana Reddy v. State

2020-09-24

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This criminal petition is filed by the petitionersaccused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying to release them on anticipatory bail in Crime No.101/2020 of Cowl Bazar Police Station, Ballari for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354-D, 334, 506, 354- C, 354-B, 509, 341, 307, 355, 504, 448, 323, 354, 324, 443 R/W 34 OF IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Smt.Venkatalakshmi alleging that she and her daughter are residing at Door NO.10, D-Block, Veeranagoda Colony, besides Ballari Club, Ballari. It is alleged that on 09.07.2020 at about 8.00 a.m the petitioner No.1/accused No.1-herein and the accused No.4 conspiring rushed into her house while she was alone in the house abused in filthy language, tried to put a lock to her house and when she obstructed they put a lock from her outside to the two gates and wrongfully constrained her for that the complainant and her daughter have advised to behave properly and informed the same to Police control room seeking help. The said persons have tried to drive out the complainant from their house, wrongfully confined and at that time the daughter of the complainant was not there in the house and she had been to market and inspite of complaint no one has come for help. When the daughter of the complainant has come to the house and when she attempted to rescue her mother the accused No.3 has obstructed the complainant and her daughter and abused the daughter in vulgar language and attempted to assault her. When the complainant has come to rescue her daughter the accused No.3 pushed her on the ground and when daughter Jyothilakshami has tired to catch the scene in the mobile phone accused No.3 started to cry and shouted in loud voice by making false allegations, sat on the road and alleged that she has been assaulted by the complainant party and inflicted the injury by herself went to the house of neighbors and where the accused No.4 was hiding and advising for to act as per his dictation. At 10.15 a.m when the complainant was alone in the house the petitioner No.1-accused No.1 herein has jumped the compound wall, held the daughter of the complainant assaulted with chappal and assaulted complainant and the petitioner No.2 jumped the compound wall and assaulted the complainant and her daughter and abused in filthy language. In that galata they pushed and pulled the cloth of the complainant and her daughter and the petitioner No.1 attempted to commit the rape on the daughter of the complainant and outraged the modesty and the petitioner No.1 and 2 tired to kill the complainant and petitioner No.1 has snatched the mobile phone of the complainant's daughter. They have also threatened the complainant and her daughter to vacate the house or else they would be killed and they will confine them in the house bearing door No.10 Veeranagouda colony belongs to the daughter of the complainant and she has filed the suit in OS No.3/2020 on the file of the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Ballari against the accused No.3 and against the petitioner No.1 herein and in that case she obtained the injunction order. When the complainant and her daughter has reached the VIMS where also the goons of the accused persons have followed them and threatened the hospital authorities and obstructed in getting the medical treatment and accused no.4 has instructed not to give treatment to the complainant party. Entire incident has taken place at the instance of the accused No.4 and apart from them the neighbors have conspired to assault the complainant party. It is also alleged that accused No.4 has demanded Rs.50,00,000/- if the complainant party live peacefully or else he will kill the complainant and her daughter. Based on the complaint a case came to be registered in Crime No.101/2020 of Cowl Bazar, Police Station for the aforesaid offences. Petitioners have filed bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. apprehending arrested and the same came to be rejected by order dated 26.08.2020 by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Ballari. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State who is assisted by Sri.Srinanda A. Pachchapure, Advocate. 4. District and Sessions Judge at Ballari. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State who is assisted by Sri.Srinanda A. Pachchapure, Advocate. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that incident had taken place on 07.07.2020 at about 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m and the complaint came to be filed on 11.07.2020 and there is a delay in filing the complaint. It is his further submission that daughter of the complainant is the aggressor and there is a counter case filed in crime No.99/2020. It is his further submission that injured has sustained simple injury and therefore Section 307 of IPC is not attracted. It is his further submission that several complaints have been filed between two parties as there is a matrimonial dispute between son of the complainant and the daughter of the petitioner. It is his further submission that accused No.3 has been granted with anticipatory bail by trial Court. With this he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP has contended that the petitioner abused the daughter of the complainant and tried to squeeze the neck of the complainant and they sustained simple injuries. It is her further submission that the incident has been recorded in CC TV . It is her further submission that complainant sustained injury near her eye. It is her further submission that there are 3 to 4 occasions earlier to this incident there are quarrels between both the parties wherein petitioners have assaulted the complainant. It is her further submission that petitioners trespassed into the house of the complainant on 09.07.2020 and complaint has been filed on 11.07.2020. It is her further submission that petitioners have shown false address in the petition claiming that they are residing with their daughter in the same compound in which the complainant is residing. It is her further submission that the petitioners have not made out any ground for anticipatory bail and if petitioners are granted with bail, they will flee from justice and hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. With this she prays to reject the anticipatory bail petition. 6. It is her further submission that the petitioners have not made out any ground for anticipatory bail and if petitioners are granted with bail, they will flee from justice and hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. With this she prays to reject the anticipatory bail petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the FIR and Complaint in Crime Nos.101/2020 and 99/2020 of Cowl Bazar Police Station, Ballari. It appears that there is an enmity between the petitioners and the complainant and her daughter. There is a case and counter case, who is the aggressor is a matter of investigation and trial. The complainant has sustained simple injuries and has already discharged from the hospital. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners-accused No.1 and 2. There is a matrimonial dispute between the son of the complainant and the daughter of the petitioners pending on the file of Principle Judge, Family Court, Ballari in MC No.222/2019. 7. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) AIR SC 312 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court after analyzing various previous judgments and guidelines, has enumerated the following factors and parameters that can be taken into consideration by courts while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences; (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Penal code, 1860, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over-implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail. 8. The injuries sustained by the complainant and her daughter are simple injuries. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2. The offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Whether the petitioners have committed the offences alleged against them can only be ascertained after investigation and trial. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of grant of anticipatory bail, petitioners may hamper investigation and tamper prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing some stringent conditions. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for grant of anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER Criminal petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. In the event of arrest, petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.101/2020 of Cowl bazaar Police Station, Ballari with the following conditions: I. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. II. II. Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today. III. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required. IV. The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. V. The petitioners shall not obstruct or hamper the Police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Police. VI. The petitioners shall not go near the house of the complainant.