Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1273 (KAR)

Basavaraj Kukanur v. State of Karnataka

2022-09-23

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the sole accused under Sec. 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereina fter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Gadag Rural Police Station Crime No.123/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 323, 353, 504 and 506 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter re ferred to as the 'IPC', for brevity). 2. The case of the prosecution is that, one Sri. Martujasab son of Fakirsab Binnal has filed the complaint stating that he is a practicing advocate at Gadag Court since 2013 and he has been appointed as Legal Advisor by Gadag District Legal Service Authority since 2019 to look after the various Government Departments work and he is providing his services in that regard. It is further stated that during his tenure as a Legal Advisor to Women and Child Development Department, Gadag, from 2021 October to 2022 January, while discharging his official duty, one Smt. Bhuvaneshwari W/o Basavaraj Kukanur @ Ganiger filed complaint bearing No.17/2021 on 26.10.2021 against her husband regarding their matrimonial dispute, at that time, Conservation Officer called upon the complainant and conducted enquiry and the present complainant advised her to lead good life and close the case. It is further stated that on 4/6/2022 when complainant was at Gadag Court complex at 12:30pm, the accused being the husband of Smt.Bhuvaneshwari, abused him in filthy language and gave life threat to him. When he questioned the same, the accused assaulted the complainant on his back and dragged him saying that the complainant is trying to separate both husband and wi fe and obstructed from per forming public duty. At that time, advocates Mailargouda Patil, Babusab Dayammanavar and Shivakumarswamy Hiremath and staff of Women and Child Development Office, Kallappa Banavi, resident of Lakkundi, and Syed Bhasha Makandar resident of Mulgund came to rescue the complainant, again, the accused went away by giving life threat to the complainant. The complainant took first aid in the house. Later, he informed about the incident to the President of Bar Association, Gadag and on their advise, he lodged the complaint. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.123/2022 in Gadag Rural Police Station for the a foresaid offences. During investigation, the petitioner came to be arrested on 16.06.2022 and he is judicial custody. Later, he informed about the incident to the President of Bar Association, Gadag and on their advise, he lodged the complaint. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.123/2022 in Gadag Rural Police Station for the a foresaid offences. During investigation, the petitioner came to be arrested on 16.06.2022 and he is judicial custody. The petitioner filed bail application be fore the learned JMFC-II, Gadag and the same came to be rejected by order dtd. 22/7/2022. The Bar Association, Gadag, has resolved not to appear on behalf of the accused and plead for him since the complainant is an advocate. None of the advocates at Gadag were ready to appear for the petitioner. Hence, he approached the District Legal Services Committee and it has requested the High Court Legal Services Committee to seek bail from this Court. There fore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the alleged incident occurred on 04.06.2022 and the complaint came to be filed on 10.06.2022 and there is delay of 6 days in filing the complaint. It is her further submission that there are no criminal antecedents of this petitioner and he is resident of Dharwad. The complainant has not sustained any injury and even he has not taken treatment in any Hospital. The of fences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The maximum punishment that can be imposed for the of fence alleged against this petitioner is 7 years. It is her further submission that investigation is completed and the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. With this, she prayed to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that, the police after completing investigation filed charge sheet against this petitioner for the o ffences under Ss. 323, 353, 504 and 506 of IPC. It is his further submission that the incident has been witnessed by CWs.4 to 7 . This petitioner has obstructed the complainant from discharging his public duties. It is his further submission that, on perusal of the charge sheet papers, there is prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. It is his further submission that the incident has been witnessed by CWs.4 to 7 . This petitioner has obstructed the complainant from discharging his public duties. It is his further submission that, on perusal of the charge sheet papers, there is prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. With this, he prayed to reject 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 charge sheet papers facilitated by the learned HCGP. 7. The accusation against this petitioner is that, as this complainant has advised the petitioner to lead good life with his wife and to close the domestic complaint, being enraged by that, the petitioner went to the Court Premises and abused the complainant in filthy language and assaulted him with hands on his back and gave him threat. The offences alleged against this petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. As charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. The petitioner is in custody since 16/6/2022. There are no criminal antecedents o f this petitioner. 8. The apprehension of the prosecution is that, if the petitioner is granted bail, he will threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and flee from justice, can be met with by imposing 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 granting bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime No.123/2022 of Gadag Rural Police Station subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. ii) The petitioner/accused shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. iii) The petitioner/accused shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.