Allowed

Kiran S/O Jayasingha Suryavanshi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2018CRL.P/101866/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail after having previously cancelled anticipatory bail and taken the accused into custody, finding it just to grant bail on personal bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail in S.C.No.141/2014 on executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety possessing immovable property for the same sum.

Kiran S/O Jayasingha Suryavanshi Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101866/2018

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

KIRAN S/O JAYASINGHA SURYAVANSHI, AGE:26 YEARS,OCC: SALESMAN, R/O: RAMANGAR,GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶10

NAGU @ NAGARAJ S/O HANAMANTAPPA CHALVADI, AGE:28 YEARS, OCC. BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIER, R/O JAMES LAND, KESHWAPURA,HUBBALLI.

¶11

... PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY Sri.S.S.YADRAMI, ADV.)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KESHWARPUR POLICE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶15

... RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP.)

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS IN SC.NO.141/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI IN KESHWAPUR PS CRIME NO.06/2011 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC.143, 147, 148, 324, 323, 307, 504 AND 506 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in S.C.No.141/2014 pending on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 323, 307, 504 and 506 R/W Sec.149 of IPC.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that on 10.01.2011 at about 10.30 p.m. petitioners having formed unlawful assembly being armed with hockey sticks, base-ball, stumps and clubs, in order to attempt on the life of one Wilson and Sabastin Bellary assaulted them in front of RPF police Station, Hubballi and further, they having chased them to the oni of the first informant assaulted one Keshav Pillary and Balaram Chalavadi and it was then one Devendrappa the deceased father of the first informant went to their rescue, the

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

petitioners insulted him, the first informant and others by abusing in filthily language and further assaulted the said Devendrappa with base ball bat, hockey stick, stumps and clubs, he collapsed and when shifted to KIMS hospital, Huballi. He was died by 11-00 p.m. on the same night.

¶25

The learned District Judge had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners on 09.02.2011. However, the complainant challenged the order of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Crl.P.No.100037/2017 C/w. Crl.P.Nos. 100038 and 100039 of 2017 before this Court. This Court, while disposing the application on 1^st March 2017, allowed the applications and cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by the learned District Judge. The relevant portion reads as under:

¶26

“ 13. Accordingly by allowing these petitions all the bails granted in favour of the accused persons in the said proceedings are set aside. It is made clear that they shall not be entitled to seek bail in any court until the proceedings against them reaches logical end. …xxxx…..”

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.S.S.Yadrami

¶28

submits that petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them and there are no incriminating circumstances against them, despite they are booked as accused.

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

Per contra, learned HCGP opposes the petition filed by the petitioners contending that there is prima facie case; in view of the grievous nature of the offences alleged against the petitioners, petitioners are not entitle for regular bail and however, the matter was challenged before the Apex Court in SLP.No.7044 of 2017, wherein the application was dismissed.

¶31

I have perused the materials on record. However, the observation of this Court for non granting of bail to the petitioners expunged, meanwhile it is observed that, on 01.03.2017 was the date of the cancellation of the anticipatory bail. On the application filed by the complainant, on the very next day, the petitioners were taken to custody. In the circumstances of the case, when the relief was granted to the petitioners, but on the application filed by the complainant before this Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail and with certain observation this court disposed off the criminal petitions. The same is challenged before the Apex Court, in which page 14, para 13 of the impugned order came to be expunged by the Apex Court.

¶32

: 5 :

¶33

Regard being had to the fact that by virtue of allowing of the applications and cancellation of the anticipatory bail, the petitioners were taken to custody and the present application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code.

¶34

The present application is made under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. thus the present petition filed by the petitioners is under muse circumstances and the application filed is totally different one. Petitioners are said to be in judicial custody since from 2^nd March 2018. In the over all circumstances, considering the sequence of proceedings that have happen, I found that it is just and appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.141/2014 pending on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 323, 307, 504 and 506 R/W Sec.149 of IPC on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety possessing immovable property for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court subject to the following:

¶37

: 6 :

¶38

CONDITIONS

¶39

The petitioners shall not terrorise and tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶40

The petitioners shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted by the Court for valid reasons.

¶41

The violation of the aforesaid reasons would result the cancellation of the bail automatically.

¶42

¶43

SD JUDGE

Kiran S/O Jayasingha Suryavanshi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran S/O Jayasingha Suryavanshi 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

Yallappa Vs Nirmala @ Chinnamma

Sri.Dadakalandar S/O Husainsab Khanagavi Vs Smt.Aneesa W/O Dadakhalandar Khanagavi

Sunilkumar.B. S/O Bhogashetty Vs Nihal D/O Sunilkumar Bhogashetty

Smt.Chandrawwa Vs Bhimappa S/O Dharamappa Padadalli

Rajappa S/O Ramappa Lagameshwar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Balabheer @ Balaram S/O. Nevalal Vs State of Karnataka