Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1892 (KAR)

Lloyd v. State Of Karnataka

2020-09-29

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the accused under Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.81/2018 of Dharwad sub-urban Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 504, 354, 307, 427, 109 and 323 read with Section 149 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity). 2. It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint came to be filed by one Smt. Kallawa Pujar, wife of Ramayya Pujar against the petitioner and others alleging that she is residing along with her relatives at Kelgeri-Dharwad and she owns land bearing Block No.89/1B measuring 1 acre 14 guntas at Kelageri and the said property belongs to herself and children of her brothers namely Kallanagouda, Basannagouda and Shankargouda. Accused No.1 had contacted the complainant on 05.02.2011 intending to purchase the said property for Rs.11,00,000/- and paid Rs.4,00,000/- as advance and agreed to pay the remaining amount at the time of execution of the sale deed. However, on the same day itself, the petitioner and another got the sale deed executed in the Sub- Registrar Office, Dharwad, by deceiving the complainant. The complainant has filed a suit in O.S. No.221/2017 before the Civil Court, Dharwad. The said matter came to be compromised before Lok Adalat. However, agreed amount was not paid. It is further alleged that when the amount was demanded, accused No.1 along with others assaulted the complainant and her family members on 24.01.2017. Hence, a complaint came to be filed in Crime No.242/2017 against the petitioner and others. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner along with accused No.1 got constructed a Church in the said site without permission of the Corporation. Even though there was an interim order, the property was sold to accused No.3. The petitioner and others were regularly harassing the complainant for withdrawing the suit. It is further alleged that on 09.07.2018, accused No.1 along with others entered the house of the complainant and dragged her and assaulted her and thereafter tied her hands and left her in the well and with the help of JCB, demolished her house. The petitioner and others were regularly harassing the complainant for withdrawing the suit. It is further alleged that on 09.07.2018, accused No.1 along with others entered the house of the complainant and dragged her and assaulted her and thereafter tied her hands and left her in the well and with the help of JCB, demolished her house. Accordingly, a complaint came to be filed which is registered in Crime No.81/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 504, 354, 307, 427, 109 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC. The name of the petitioner has been shown as accused No.2 in the FIR. The petitioner filed petition seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc. No.867/2019 and the same came to be rejected by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is civil dispute between the complainant and the petitioner in O.S. No.221/2017 and the same came to be settled in Lok Adalat. It is his further submission that in the incident dated 09.07.2018, there is no role played by the petitioner/accused No.2 but his name came to be shown in the complaint and FIR as there is a civil dispute between him and the complainant. It is his further submission that accused No.1 has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.102294/2019 by order dated 10.12.2019 and accused No.3 has been granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court in Crl.Misc. No.102/2020 dated 19.03.2020 and therefore on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail. It is his further submission that in two criminal cases, in which the petitioner was involved, have been disposed of and the petitioner has been acquitted. It is his further submission that on looking to the averments in the complaint, an offence under Section 307 cannot be made out. There is no overt act against the petitioner in the complaint. It is his further submission that, as the name of the petitioner is shown in the FIR, he apprehends arrest. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. There is no overt act against the petitioner in the complaint. It is his further submission that, as the name of the petitioner is shown in the FIR, he apprehends arrest. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the petitioner is a rowdysheeter and there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the complainant. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, she prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the FIR, complaint and other records. 7. As per the complaint dated 09.07.2018, there is no mention of the name of the petitioner/accused No.2 with regard to the incident dated 09.07.2018. The overt act alleged is against accused No.1 and 20 others. The name of the petitioner is mentioned in the complaint with regard to the civil dispute between the petitioner and the complainant. The presence of the petitioner is not mentioned in the complaint. Merely because several criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, it is not a ground to reject the petition. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in the case of Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi v. State of UP and another, (2012) 2 SCC 382 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 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. 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 the petitioner fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court and when it is not disputed that the petitioner is permanent resident of Keshwapur, Hubballi and he is residing there along with his family members, it appears there is no such possibility. Accused No.1 has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.102294/2019 by order dated 10.12.2019 and accused No.3 has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in Crl.Misc. No.102/2020 by order dated 19.03.2020. Therefore, on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail by imposing necessary conditions to see that the petitioner shall co-operate 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 petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner/accused No.2 shall be released 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/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court on the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer/concerned Court within fifteen days from today. ii) The petitioner shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police station on first Sunday of every month between 11.00 am and 6.00 pm for a period of 3 months or till filing of the final report whichever is earlier. ii i) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses and co-operate with the investigating officer in the investigation.