Allowed

Shri.Pandurang S/O Ganapati Kamkar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2019CRL.P/101144/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for eight accused persons facing charges under various sections of the IPC. The Court imposed conditions including surrender within ten days and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; accused must surrender within 10 days, provide bond with sureties, cooperate in investigation, and attend specified police stations.

Shri.Pandurang S/O Ganapati Kamkar Vs the State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.G.M.PATIL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101144/2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI.PANDURANG S/O GANAPATI KAMKAR AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.311, CHAVADI GALLI, M VADAGAON, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶9

SHRI.ANAND S/O PANDURANG KAMKAR AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.311, CHAVADI GALLI, M VADAGAON, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

SHRI.NARAYAN S/O RAMAKRISHNA KAMKAR AGE: 45 YEARS,

¶11

¶12

OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.311, CHAVADI GALLI, M VADAGAON, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶13

SHRI.BASAVARAJ S/O LAXMAN KAMKARA AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.344, TAGGIN GALLI, M VADAGAON, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

SHRI.PRAVEEN S/O SADANAND KAMKAR AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.344, TAGGIN GALLI, M VADAGAON, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

SHRI.VIRUPAXI S/O VASUDEV DHAGE AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BHARAT NAGAR 4TH CROSS, SHAHAPUR, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶16

SHRI.GAJANAN S/O NARAYAN MORKAR AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: TEGGIN GALLI M VADAGOAN, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶17

SHRI.RAGHAVENDRA S/O

¶18

¶19

GANGARAM LOKARI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KALMESHWAR ROAD, M VADAGOAN, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI. ...PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. S.B.DEYANNAVAR, ADV.)

¶21

AND

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SHAHAPUR POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DHARWAD BENCHH DHARWAD.

¶23

... RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING THAT ALLOWING THE PETITION THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 6, 9 & 10 BE RELEASED ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN SHAHAPUR P.S. CRIME NO.165/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120-B, 143, 395, 379 & 380 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This is an anticipatory bail petition filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, in Crime No.165/2018 of Shahapura police station, Kudligi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 395, 379, 149, 380 of IPC.

¶30

The case of the prosecution in brief is

¶31

that one Smt. Shanti Babu Sarode, resident of Chavadi Galli, Anandmarg, Vadagaon, Belagavi filed a private complaint before the Court which was referred to the respondent police for investigation. She has stated in the complaint that her husband had availed hand loan from accused and he was promptly paying interest at 5% per month. She has alleged that on 25/9/2018 at about 11.00 a.m., accused

¶32

¶33

persons along with 50-60 henchmen, barged into factory of husband of the complainant and threatened him. Complainant approached Shahapur police, at that time, accused No.2 had lodged a complaint against her husband. Thereafter, Shahapur police visited the factory and locked it. However, soon after the police left the factory, the accused trespassed into the factory and taken away the machineries and articles in all worth Rs.58,70,000/- along with documents relating to the children of the complainant. Initially, the complaint lodged by the complainant before the police was not registered. Thereafter, the complainant filed the said private complaint which was referred to respondent police for investigation, on the basis of which the case is registered against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. Petitioners have stated that they have been

¶34

¶35

falsely implicated in the case and that the allegations made in the complaint are created one. There is no prima facie case for the alleged offences. They are ready to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by the Court and to furnish adequate surety. It is also stated that none of the alleged offences are made out in the complaint.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶37

petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

¶38

It is not disputed that the complainant

¶39

initially filed a complaint before the respondent police for the alleged offences which was not entertained by the police. Thereafter, the complainant filed a private complaint before the III JMFC, Belgaum on 20/10/2018 which was referred to the respondent police for

¶40

investigation. It is also made out that petitioner

¶41

¶42

Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 have filed a private complaint against the complainant and husband of the complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the said cases are pending disposal before the concerned Court. When these facts are considered, it is very much doubtful as to whether offence under Section 395 of IPC is attracted to the case. The complainant has also not produced any material

¶43

in respect of her allegation that the machineries and articles in all worth Rs.58,70,000/- were taken away by the petitioners-accused from the factory premises of the husband of the complainant. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is not disputed that all the petitioners are permanent residents of Belgaum having movable and immovable properties and their kith and kin. Under these circumstances, this Court is of

¶44

¶45

the considered opinion that the petitioners may

¶46

be enlarged on bail by imposing necessary conditions including the condition that when the petitioners appear before the investigating officer, their presence shall be treated as “in custody” for the purpose of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, along with other conditions, to see that the petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not abscond and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner Nos.1 to 8 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.165/2018

¶49

¶50

of Shahapur police station, on the following conditions:-

¶51

i) Petitioner Nos.1 to 8 shall surrender themselves before the investigating officer of the concerned police station within 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶52

ii) When they so surrender before the investigating officer, their presence shall be treated as ‘in custody’, for the purpose of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioners shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶53

iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigating officer to complete

¶54

¶55

the investigation and shall also mark their attendance before the SHO of the Shahapur police station on every 2^nd and 4^th Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till the final report is filed.

¶56

iv) The petitioners shall not cause any threat to the prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Vmb

Shri.Pandurang S/O Ganapati Kamkar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Pandurang S/O Ganapati Kamkar 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

Dayanand S/O. Hanumanth Nayak Vs Suresh S/O. Subray Shet

Basavaraj S/O Shantappa Shetteppanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Gutteppa S/O Bhimappa Karibheemannanavar Vs State of Karnataka

Anand Vs State of Karnataka

Yaseen S/O Dastagir Malidwale Vs Azizkhan S/O Lazam Tajoddin

Yaseen S/O Dastagir Malidwale Vs Azizkhan S/O Lazam Tajoddin