Allowed

Siddarth S/O Madav Nayak v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2018CRL.P/101803/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the petitioner facing charges of cheating and intimidation. The Court imposed conditions including a bond and prohibition on tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety, subject to conditions.

Siddarth S/O Madav Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

Crl.P.No.101803 of 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

Siddarth S/o.Madav Nayak, Age 26 years, Occ: Student, R/o.: Padmanabh Nagar, Tq.: Karwar.

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

(By Shri S.B.Doddagoudar, Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

The State of Karnataka, (PSI Chittakula Police Station), Rep. by SPP, High Court Building, Dahrwad.

¶13

… Respondent

¶14

(By Shri Praveen K.Uppar, HCGP)

¶15

This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 506, 448, 342 and 353 of IPC in Chitakul P.s. Crime No.52 of 2018 on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and just, in the above case to meet the ends of justice.

¶16

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

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶20

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., wherein the petitioner seeks directions to the respondent-Police to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.52 of 2018 of Chittakula P.S. for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 448, 342 and 353 of IPC.

¶21

It is stated in the complaint that the petitioner has obtained the admission to the College in the year 2010 for the Civil Engineering for Four years Engineering course and in spite of lapse of eight years he has filed to complete his examinations. On 04.07.2018 at about 2:00 p.m. he attempted to malpractice in the examination for 3^rd semester for which he has brought 3-4 note books to the examination hall, when it was not allowed, he came out of the examination hall, but at 3:30 p.m., he brought press people and trespassed into the chamber of the

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

Principal and wrongfully confined the principal for a period of 45 minutes, threatened him and obstructed him for discharging his official duty. It is further stated that again on 05.07.2018 at 1:20 p.m. the petitioner tresspassed into the examination hall and misbehaved with the staff on duty, when it was brought to the notice of the Police and after coming to know about the arrival of the Police, he escaped from the spot. Based upon the same, the complaint came to be filed on 07.07.2018 before the respondent Police.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a student leader and he works for students interest. When he raised his voice against the lack of infrastructure in the college and improper arrangements to the students for writing examination, he has been arraigned as accused in this case. He further submits that the petitioner is hard worker and has no bad intentions. Hence, prays for allowing the bail petition.

¶25

: 4 :

¶26

The learned HCGP opposes the bail application filed by the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is the student who has taken more than eight years and he is still writing third semester examination, that itself indicate that the petitioner is not a student, he is posing himself as a student leader and destroying the heath in the campus of the college. He further submits that he is ill-treating the staff members of the college. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner.

¶27

In the context and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of offence, I find that the apprehension of the petitioner appears to be well founded and he deserves for grant of anticipatory bail. Thus, no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution in case the bail petition is allowed. However, the apprehension of the prosecution would be resolved by imposing conditions. Hence, the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime

¶30

: 5 :

¶31

No.52 of 2018 of Chittakula Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 448, 342 and 353 of IPC, he shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/with one surety possessing immovable properties for like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer subject to following conditions:

¶32

(a) The petitioners shall not tamper or terrorize the persecution witnesses in any manner.

¶33

(b) In case of registration of one more criminal case against the petitioner, the benefit of anticipatory bail granted in this petition shall stand revoked.

¶34

Vnp*

¶35

Sd/- JUDGE

Siddarth S/O Madav Nayak v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddarth S/O Madav Nayak 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

Daulath S/O Husain Sab Agasibagelu Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivayogeppa S/O. Basavanneppa Bilagi Vs the Cardmom Merchants Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Punit S/O Bhimasing Rajaput Vs State of Karnataka

K. Lingappa S/O Harijana Hanumanthappa Vs Anirudd Sravan

Riyazasab S/O Maiboobsab Sayyad @ Bandagisayyed Vs the State of Karnataka

Channamallappa S/O Parasappa Halakurki Vs the State of Karnataka