Allowed

Siddanna v. the State

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2018CRL.P/200972/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner, despite prior rejection and absconding, due to weak prosecution evidence, lack of connection to the seized vehicle, and unnecessary nature of custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to execute a bond of Rs. 1.00 lakh with two sureties and appear before the Magistrate to be enlarged on bail.

Siddanna Vs the State — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200972/2018

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SIDDANNA S/O BASANNA HONAKERI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE KOLKUR, TQ. JEWARGI DISTRICT: KALABURAGI (ACCUSED NO.2)

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI B.S.NASI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH JEWARGI POLICE STATION REP.BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107

¶14

... RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND

¶17

¶18

THE PETITIONERS MAY BE RELEASED ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.346/2017 AND FIR NO.515/2017 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 379, 341,353, 307, 327, 504, 506, 149 OF IPC AND 21(1) MMRD ACT,1957 OF JEWARGI POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL J.M.F.C. AT JEWARAGI.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has moved an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.346/2017 pending on the file of Principal J.M.F.C., at Jewargi.

¶22

The application filed before the Court below was rejected mainly for the reason that the earlier petition filed by him under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was rejected and even thereafter the petitioner remained absconded and NBW was issued against the petitioner.

¶23

Normally, in such circumstance the petitioner

¶24

would not have been admitted to bail; but in the instant case the records indicate that the only allegation made

¶25

¶26

against the present petitioner is that he instigated accused Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 to assault the police personnel and attempted to run over a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No.KA05, MK 110 on police personnel.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither the owner nor the driver of the said vehicle and he is no where connected with the vehicle, which was seized at the spot. There are no allegations that the petitioner herein assaulted any of the police personnel. The records do not indicate that any genuine attempts were made by the police personnel to arrest the petitioner during investigation.

¶28

In the above circumstance, a strong case is required to be made out by the prosecution to take custody of the petitioner. Investigation is completed. The photographs produced along with the charge sheet do not depict the alleged Scorpio jeep. No material is produced to connect the petitioner to the alleged Scorpio jeep. The report of P.C 859 indicate that on seeing the police team

¶29

¶30

the drivers of the Tipper lorries ran away leaving the keys of the lorries in the vehicle. Under the said circumstance, the allegation made against the petitioner that he instigated the drivers of the lorries to assault the police appears to be far from truth.

¶31

Having regard to the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Therefore taking into consideration all these facts and circumstance of the case, the petitioner deserves to be admitted to bail. The decision in Lavesh vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 730 relates to a proclaimed offender. In the instant case nothing is available to show that any summons were issued by the court before issuing the NBW against the petitioner. In the wake of these facts, the circumstances referred above amount to charged circumstances entitling the petitioner for grant of bail.

¶32

¶33

7. Hence the following order: -

¶34

Criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate within 10 days from the date of this order and on his appearance, the Magistrate shall enlarge him on bail on the same day

¶35

subject to the following conditions:-

¶36

a. The petitioner shall furnish a bond in a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate;

¶37

b. He shall appear before the Magistrate as and when required;

¶38

c. He shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

VNR

Siddanna v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddanna v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Reddy Vs the State and Ors.

Mohammed Ayyub and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Moulana Kaarobaari Vs Sulochana W/O Late Narayana and Anr.

Chanrashekar and Anr. Vs the State of Karanataka and Anr.

M.M Khaji S/O Md.Moosa Khaji Vs the State

Vijaykumar Vs the State