Allowed

Muralidhar S/O Ramrao Shekwale, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2017CRL.P/200877/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail petition, the petitioner, a 70-year-old laborer accused of caste-based abuse and assault in a disputed land matter, sought relief based on his age, health conditions, and the significant delay in filing the complaint. The Court observed that the complaint was lodged 51 days after the incident amidst a pending civil dispute and released the petitioner on bail subject to st

What did the court decide?

The Court directed the respondent-Police to release the petitioner on bail upon arrest, subject to executing a personal bond, providing sureties, and adhering to non-tampering and investigation cooper

Muralidhar S/O Ramrao Shekwale, Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 200877/2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

Muralidhar S/o Ramrao Shekwale Aged about 70 years Occ: Labour, R/o Hunsanal Village Tq. Humnabad & Dist. Bidar–585 401.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri Ravi B. Patil, Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

The State of Karnataka Through Humnabad Police Station Humnabad, Dist: Bidar – 585 401 Represented by Addl. SPP High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench.

¶13

... Respondent (By Sri P.S. Patil, HCGP)

¶14

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to a) grant an order of anticipatory bail favoring the petitioners in respect of the alleged offence in Crime No.208/2017 of Humnabad Police Station pending on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Court Bidar, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (r),

¶15

¶16

3(1) (f) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, under Sections 504, 447 of IPC, & under Section 3(1) (i), 3(1) (s) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act.

¶17

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present petition is filed by the

¶20

petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.208/2017 of Humnabad Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1) (f) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, under section 504, 447 of IPC & under Section 3(1) (i), 3(1) (s) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act.

¶21

Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint is that, on 16.05.2017 at about 11.00 a.m., when the complainant along with her husband and son went to Sy.No.79 of Hunasnal village, they saw the petitioner cultivating the land and at that time, the complainant questioned as to why he is cultivating the land

¶22

¶23

belonging to her father. When the complainant questioned, the petitioner abused the complainant in filthy language by taking name of her caste and thereafter, he assaulted her. On seeing the same, husband and son of the complainant taken away the complainant from the spot and thereafter, complaint was registered against the petitioner.

¶24

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶25

the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.

¶26

The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence alleged against him. Due to the civil dispute between the parties, a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner after fifty one days of the incident. He would further contend that without ascertaining the fact, the police have registered a false case against the petitioner. He

¶27

¶28

would also contend that petitioner is a permanent resident of Hunasnal village and he has got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of he being absconded. He would contend that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. He would also contend that petitioner is aged about 70 years and due to his old age, he is suffering from heart problem, diabetes and blood pressure and if he is apprehended and detained in prison, it would affect his health. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶29

On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently contended that though the said land belongs to the father of the complainant, petitioner by taking the law into his hands has abused the complainant by taking the name of her caste. He would

¶30

¶31

contend that petitioner is absconding and he was not available either for investigation or interrogation. At this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of he being absconded and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

I have perused the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition.

¶33

As could be seen from the contents of the complaint, when the complainant along with her husband and son had been to the land bearing Sy.No.79, the petitioner was cultivating the land and when he was questioned as to why he is cultivating the said land, he abused the complainant in filthy language by taking name of her caste and also assaulted the complainant. Though there is allegation in the complaint to the effect that the petitioner has abused the complainant by taking name of her caste, the

¶34

¶35

alleged incident has taken place on 16.05.2017 and the complaint was lodged on 07.07.2017 i.e., after fifty one days of the incident. Be that as it may. Even the contents of the complaint would indicate the fact that before filing the complaint, some discussions and deliberations have been made and thereafter, complaint has been filed. When admittedly civil disputes are pending and there is delay in filing the complaint and by taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled for bail. Therefore, I feel that if the petitioner is released on bail by imposing stringent conditions, it would safeguard the interest of the prosecution and it would meet the ends of justice.

¶36

For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed.

¶37

The respondent-Police are hereby directed to release the petitioner/accused on bail, in the event of

¶38

¶39

his arrest, for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions :-

¶40

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

¶41

ii. The petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶42

iii. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required and co-operate for investigation.

¶43

iv. The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court and execute personal bond, surety bond and furnish surety within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶44

BL/NB* Ct: vk

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

Muralidhar S/O Ramrao Shekwale, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muralidhar S/O Ramrao Shekwale, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fayaz Husen S/O Makbool @ Khabula Husen and Ors. Vs the State through Raichur West Police Station

Javeed S/O Nabilal Bagewadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Balappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Gundappa S/O Kallappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Anil S/O Seetaram Lamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh S/O Narsappa Waddar Vs the State of Karnataka through