Allowed

Sri. Santosh S/ Shevu Chavan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2019CRL.P/200582/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner faced allegations of assault and attempted murder. The Court balanced investigation needs against apprehension of detention and imposed conditions suggesting bail is likely if no substantial ground is later found.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition for anticipatory bail was allowed; the petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer who shall enlarge him on bail within reasonable time subject to strict c

Sri. Santosh S/ Shevu Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE 2019

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.200582/2019

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SANTOSH S/ SHEVU CHAVAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS OCC: STUDENT, R/o J.P. NAGAR VIJAYAPURA, TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPURA

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH JAL NAGAR POLICE STATION REP. BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH KALABURAGI

¶14

... RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.20/2019 OF JAL NAGAR POLICE STATION DIST VIJAYAPUR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.109, 120(B) 307, 323, 324, 326, 341, 504,

¶17

¶18

506, R/W 149 OF IPC & SECTION 3(2) (Va) OF SC/ST POA ACT, PENDING BEFORE III ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC VIJAYAPUR.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Jalanagar Police Station Crime No.20/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120(B), 307, 323, 324, 326, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of

¶22

IPC and 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Prevention of Attrocities Act, 2015.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶24

learned High Court Government Pleader for the

¶25

respondent-state and perused the records.

¶26

The FIR is registered based on the complaint

¶27

filed by the complainant-Shridevi w/o Suresh Nayak, who is injured victim in this case. The allegations are

¶28

¶29

that on 19.02.2019, some unknown persons at the instigation of the petitioner and other accused have assaulted the complainant’s husband with an intention to commit the murder. After registration of the complaint, the police have taken up the investigation.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant’s husband is working as a Physical Training Teacher in the school belonging to the petitioner’s mother and there was dispute regarding the payment of salary by the institution. Hence, a false complaint was registered against the petitioner and his mother with an intention to harass them. Petitioner and other accused are not responsible for assault said to have been done and the injuries caused to him. The police are making attempt to arrest the petitioner and other accused persons on the basis of false complaint registered against him and other accused persons.

¶31

¶32

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶33

submits that averments made in the complaint clearly disclose that there was enmity between the complainant’s husband and management of school where complainant’s husband was working which is the main cause for incident of assault. The petitioner and other accused are liable for the offences committed.

¶34

As could be seen from the records and the

¶35

complaint averments, the complainant’s husband was working in the school run by the Institution where the petitioner’s mother is a Secretary and managing trustee. There was dispute regarding payment of salary to the complainant’s husband. In that connection when the complainant enquired, the office bearers of the school management have threatened her. Thereafter, on the date of incident i.e. on 19.02.2019 some persons engaged by the petitioner and other accused have assaulted the complainant’s husband at their instigation with an

¶36

¶37

intention to commit murder. As such, there are no valid grounds to grant anticipatory bail. If petitioner is enlarged on bail, he is likely to commit similar offence and tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

In the instant case, there are allegations

¶39

about the offences said to have been committed under Sections 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Prevention of Attrocities Act, but the petitioner and complainant are belonging to the same community. As such, the said sections are not applicable. The injury certificate produced by the learned High Court Government Pleader discloses that the injured victim admitted to hospital on 21.02.2019 and he was discharged on 05.03.2019. According to the

¶40

said medical certificate, the complainant’s husband namely Suresh has sustained 3-4 fractures. Admittedly, FIR was not initially registered against the petitioner and other accused. Later they have been arrayed. Admittedly, the name of the assailants are not found in

¶41

¶42

the complaint. At this stage, it is needless to make the detail discussion as the same is not necessary while granting the bail. While considering the prayer for granting anticipatory bail, the balance has been struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free fair and full investigation and there should prevention of harassment and humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the accused is likely to be abscond and cause threat to the prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.

¶43

The submission of the counsel and the prosecution records available goes to prove the apprehension of the petitioner regarding his arrest and detention. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶44

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The criminal petition is allowed.

¶47

Petitioner is directed to appear before the

¶48

Investigating Officer within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on his appearance the Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioner and shall enlarge him on bail within reasonable time, subject to the following:

¶49

CONDITIONS:

¶50

The petitioner shall furnish a personal

¶51

bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶52

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶53

¶54

The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation;

¶55

The petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses;

¶56

In the event of registration of any other criminal case in respect of commission of similar offence, the present bail order shall stand cancelled;

¶57

If the petitioner is found to have violated any of the bail conditions, the present bail order shall stand automatically cancelled;

¶58

The petitioner shall mark his attendance in respondent-Jala Nagar Police Station, Vijayapura, on every Monday until submission of the final report.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

sdu

Sri. Santosh S/ Shevu Chavan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Santosh S/ Shevu Chavan 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

Syed Saddiq and Anr. Vs the State through

Sri.Sangaraj Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Sri Yadunandan Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivu @ Shivappa S/O Hanamantha Vs the State of Karnataka

Balappa S/O Gaddeppa Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Balram@ Baliram Vs State of Karnataka