Allowed

Shri.Siddappa Yallappa Rankanakoppa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2019CRL.P/101678/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the accused in a case involving suicide and money lending offences, imposing standard conditions regarding witness tampering and court appearance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to self bond, two sureties, regular appearance, and no tampering with witnesses.

Shri.Siddappa Yallappa Rankanakoppa Vs the State of… — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^{S T} DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.G.M.PATIL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101678/2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI.SIDDAPPA YALLAPPA RANKANAKOPPA @ TAVALGERI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.VITHAL S TELI, ADVOCATE.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD, THROUGH RAIBAG POLICE STATION, RAIBAG, BELAGAVI.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP.)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL, IN THE EVENT ARREST OF THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.9 IN C.C.NO.1095/2016 (RAIBAG P.S. CR.NO.293/2015) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, RAIBAG, FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 306 OF IPC & SEC. 4 OF KARNATAKA PROHIBITION OF CHARGING EXORBITANT INTEREST ACT, 2004 AND SEC. 38 OF KARNATAKA MONEY LENDERS ACT, 1961, BE RELEASED ON BAIL.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This is an anticipatory bail petition filed

¶20

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for enlargement of the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.293/2015 of Raibag Police Station now pending in C.C.No.1095/2016 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 and Section 38 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961.

¶21

The case of the prosecution in brief is that one Smt.Lakkavva Shankar Jadennavar filed a complaint before the respondent-police. She has alleged in the complaint that she was

¶22

living with her husband Shankar Fakirappa Jadennavar and children by name Halappa,

¶23

¶24

Radhika and Sachin. Her husband on account of urgent necessities and also for family needs had borrowed hand loan from Halappa Kareppa Ballari, Malakari Kareppa Ballari, Lakkappa Nippani, Chandu Lakkappa Savasuddi, Ramanaik Hanamantnaik and they were extracting interest at the rate of 10% per week. In view of the higher rate of interest her husband was unable to pay the interest and even the complainant had given her earnings and golden ornaments which were pledged for payment of interest. Therefore her husband had become disgusted and fed up in the life due to threats and harassment by the said persons who had lent money to her husband. On account of such harassment by the said persons, her husband committed suicide by consuming poison on 04.09.2015 in his house. On the basis of the said complaint the respondent police

¶25

¶26

registered the case initially against accused Nos.1 to 8. After completing the investigation the police have filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 9.

¶27

The petitioner has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. His name does not find place in the complaint and that at the time of filing the charge sheet his name has been included as accused No.9 showing him as absconding. At no point of time he indulged in such activities as stated in the complaint. The other accused persons in the case have been enlarged on bail. He is ready and willing to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by this Court and also to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Court. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or life

¶28

imprisonment.

¶29

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶31

petitioner and the learned HCGP.

¶32

It is not disputed that the name of the

¶33

petitioner accused No.9 was not mentioned in the complaint nor in the death note left by the deceased and therefore initially the petitioner was not included as one of the accused in the case. It is submitted that on the basis of the further statement of the complainant the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.9 in the case. Admittedly charge sheet has already been filed and therefore, the question of hampering the investigation by the petitioner does not arise. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Raibag, District Belagavi having movable and immovable properties. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

¶34

¶35

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to imposing certain conditions to see that the petitioner will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and appear before the Committal and Trial Court regularly and co-operate in the trial of the case.

¶36

Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The anticipatory bail petition filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.293/2015 of Raibag Police Station now pending in C.C.No.1095/2016 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Raibag, on the following conditions:

¶39

¶40

The petitioner is directed to appear before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶41

On appearance of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a self bond for a sum of Rs.1 lakh with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal Court.

¶42

The petitioner shall not threaten or try to tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶43

The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.

¶44

The petitioner shall appear before the Committal Court or the Trial Court regularly and co-operate in concluding the trial at the earliest.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Shri.Siddappa Yallappa Rankanakoppa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Siddappa Yallappa Rankanakoppa 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

Sri.Rakesh @ Rakhi Son of Tayappa Vs State of Karnataka

Vittal S/O Laxmappa Nadagoudra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Sunil S/O Sidram Kshetri Vs the State of Karnataka

Bharat S/O Nagusa Shinghri Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishesh S/O Ishwargouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Kumar @ Shivakumar S/O Somanna Radder Vs the State of Karnataka