Allowed

Shankrappa S/O Malleshappa Kulkarni v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2019CRL.P/102012/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a Criminal Petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for six accused accused ofabetting suicide under IPC Section 306. The court imposed conditions including appearance within 10 days, cooperation with investigation, and refraining from threatening witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail subject to personal bond, appearance before IO within 10 days, cooperation with investigation, and non-threat to witnesses.

Shankrappa S/O Malleshappa Kulkarni Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.G.M.PATIL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102012/2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHANKRAPPA S/O MALLESHAPPA KULKARNI AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BOGANUR TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶9

BASAVARAJ S/O SHANKRAPPA KULKARNI AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BOGANUR TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶10

IRANNA S/O SHANKRAPPA KULKARNI AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: LORRY CLEANER, R/O: BOGANUR TQ: NAVALGUND,

¶11

¶12

DIST: DHARWAD.

¶13

BHIMANAGOUDA S/O HANUMANTAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ARATTI, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶14

CHANDRAGOUDA S/O SHANKARGOUDA TOTANAGOUDAR AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOLEHADAGALI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶15

PUJARGOUDA S/O IRANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HULLUR, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶16

... PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADV.) AND

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHAWAD BENCH, REP. BY PSI RON.

¶19

... RESPONDENT

¶20

(BYSMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶21

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL WHO HAVE BEEN IMPLICATED IN RON P.S. CRIME NO.127/2019 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 306 OF IPC, PENDING TRIAL OF THE SAID CASE.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This is an anticipatory bail petition filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail, in the event of his arrest, in Crime No.127/2019 of Ron P.S., registered for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC.

¶26

The case of the prosecution in brief is

¶27

that, on 1.9.2019, the complainant Neelavva W/o Shivaputrappa Badami filed a complaint before the respondent police. She has alleged in the complaint that her daughter was married to

¶28

¶29

accused No.1 who is the resident of Boganur village, Navalgund Taulk and the said Basamma died about one year back. The elders in the village asked the husband of Basamma to give a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of utensils, gold and other expenses which were given at the time of marriage. Accordingly, accused No.1 had issued a cheque to the husband of the complainant for the said amount and when the said cheque was presented it was dishonoured. In that connection, the deceased had filed a complaint before the Court for cheque bounce. The accused persons were giving threats to her husband and pressurized him to withdraw the said complaint, otherwise, he would be murdered by them. Due to this threat, her husband committed suicide in his house at Asuti village on 1/9/2019.

¶30

¶31

On the basis of the complaint, the

¶32

respondent police registered a case against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the aforesaid offence.

¶33

The petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 6 in the FIR have stated that

¶34

they have been falsely implicated in the case. There are no direct or indirect materials to connect the petitioners with the alleged offence. The incident as narrated in the complaint has never happened. The petitioners are agriculturists, which is the only source of their income. The petitioners are permanent residents of Boganur village sand residing with the family members. There are no criminal antecedents against them. They are ready and willing to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by the Court and to furnish adequate surety to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶35

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶37

The allegations in the complaint goes to show that the daughter of the complainant was given in marriage to accused No.1 and subsequently, she died and there was some settlement in the presence of the elders of the village in which accused No.1 had agreed to give a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the deceased, the husband of the complainant in lieu of the utensils. gold etc. In pursuance of the said settlement, accused No.1 had issued a cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the deceased which was dishonoured. Apart from this, absolutely there are no other materials which forced or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The complaint also does not disclose as

¶38

¶39

to when the accused persons harassed and instigated the deceased to commit the suicide. It is not disputed that the petitioners are permanent residents of Boganur village, Navalgund Tuluk, having movable and immovable properties and residing with their kith and kin.

¶40

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners may be enlarged on bail by imposing necessary conditions. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The anticipatory bail petition filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.127/2019 of Ron police station, on the following conditions:-

¶43

¶44

i) The petitioners shall appear and surrender themselves before the concerned Investigation Officer within 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of `50,000/- each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer.

¶45

ii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigating officer to complete the investigation and shall also mark their attendance before the SHO of the Ron 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.

¶46

¶47

iii) 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.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Vmb

Shankrappa S/O Malleshappa Kulkarni v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankrappa S/O Malleshappa Kulkarni 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

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

Sri. Umesh D. Sharma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sadiq @ Tawa S/O Mahammadli Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammedaslam @ Moulana Vs the State of Karnataka