Allowed

Sri. Raosab S/O. Bharama Sanadi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2018CRL.P/101102/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by five accused persons facing charges of cattle theft and criminal conspiracy. The High Court granted anticipatory bail, directing execution of a personal bond with surety and imposing strict conditions regarding witness tampering and jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners enlarged on bail on executing personal bond of Rs.50,000 each with surety subject to conditions.

Sri. Raosab S/O. Bharama Sanadi Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

¶7

CRL.P. NO.101102 OF 2018

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

SRI. RAVUSAB S/O. BHARAMU SANADI, AGE:38 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O. KANCHAKARWADI, TAL:RAIBAG, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶10

SRI NAGAPPA @ KISAMUGNAGYA S/O. GOVIND SANADI, AGE:24 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O. KANCHIKARWADI, TAL:RAIBAG, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶11

SRI RAJU S/O. CHIKKAYYA SANADI, AGE:23 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O. KANCHIKARWADI, TAL:RAIBAG, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶12

SRI HALAPPA S/O. MAHADEV SANADI, AGE:24 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O. KANCHIKARWADI, TAL:RAIBAG, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶13

SRI LAVAPPA S/O. GOVIND SANADI, AGE ABOUT:30 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O. KANCHIKARWADI, TAL:RAIBAG, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶14

(BY SMT. BHARATHI G BHAT, ADVOCATE)

..... PETITIONERS

: 2 :

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANAHATTI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

¶19

..... RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND IN THE EVENT OF ARREST BY THE BANAHATTI POLICE STATION, ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.2,3,5,6,7 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO. 137/2016 OF BANAHATTI POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI, IN C.C.NO.1088/2017, FOR AN OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 411, 457, 447, 380 R/W 149 OF IPC.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking for anticipatory bail in Cr.No.137/2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 411, 457, 447, 380 r/w 149 of IPC.

¶25

The substance of the complaint is that the complainant along with his son Jagadish have grazing the cows and calf at the evening and tied them in the shed after taking milk from them and went to the house at 8.00 p.m. On the next day, on 29.09.2016 at about 6.30 a.m.,

¶26

: 3 :

¶27

they went to extract milk at that time two cows were not in the shed. Hence, asked the neighbourers regarding that and not found them, then they had been to Jamakhandi. Then they came to know that someone had stolen their cattle. Hence, they had gone to Athani, Ankalagi, Raibag etc., where the buffalo market in the market gathered. Each cow approximately worth Rs.20,000/-. On 02.11.2016, came to know that Sadalaga Police have caught two cows as per information of the complainant and Sadashiv Parappa Jambagi, went to Sadalaga Police Station and identified the same and enquired about cattle.

¶28

It is stated that a criminal case came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 411, 47, 447, 380 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The names of the accused were not mentioned in Banahatti Crime No.137/2016 and it appears after the registration of the case, police came to know about the involvement of the present petitioners.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the accused petitioners are taken by surprise as informed and they never had any symptom of registering the case against them.

¶32

Learned HCGP opposes the petition and would submit that petitioners are shown to be absconding and the final report is filed and submit that there are two other cases against the petitioners.

¶33

In the context and circumstances considering the circumstances of the case, no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution, in case the anticipatory bail petition is allowed. However, the apprehension of the prosecution would be resolved by imposing suitable conditions. Hence, the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.137/2016 of Banahatti Police Station, on their executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with a surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the

¶36

: 5 :

¶37

Investigating Officer of the concerned police station, subject to the following conditions;

¶38

i) The petitioners-accused shall not terrorize the witnesses nor tamper the prosecution evidence in any manner.

¶39

ii) The petitioners-accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bagalkot District without intimating the Investigating Officer.

¶40

iii) The petitioners-accused shall mark their attendance on every first Thursday and Saturday between 9.30 and 10.30 p.m. till the charges are framed.

¶41

In case of involvement of one more case against the petitioners, the benefit of bail granted in this case shall automatically stands cancelled, ipso facto.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

msr

Sri. Raosab S/O. Bharama Sanadi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Raosab S/O. Bharama Sanadi 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

State of Karnataka Vs Nilesh Prakash Warekar

State of Karnataka Vs Shri. Umesh S/O. Vishwanath Katti

Puttappa Shambana Hebballi Vs State of Karnataka

Mahantesh S/O Basappa Udapudi Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanamant S/O Shrishail Padashetti Vs Smt. Mahadevi W/O Yallappa Bagi