Allowed

Lokesh S/O Nagappa Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2020CRL.P/100627/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by two accused persons facing charges of intimidation andabetment to suicide. The Court observed that the initial FIR as a UDR case undermined the prosecution's case regarding suicide and held that arrest was not imperative. Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions, including personal bond, regular appearanc

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was allowed, directing the petitioners to execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each with two sureties and abide by strict conditions reg

Lokesh S/O Nagappa Naik Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100627 OF 2020

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

LOKESH S/O. NAGAPPA NAIK, AGE : 37 YEARS, OCC : PETTY BUSINESS, R/O.BANDIKASHI, SHIRALI VILLAGE,

¶7

TALUK : BHATKAL, DIST : UTTARA KANNADA.

¶8

RAJESH S/O.NAGAPPA NAIK, AGE : 34 YEARS, OCC : PETTY BUSINESS, R/O.BANDIKASHI, SHIRALI VILLAGE, TALUK : BHATKAL, DIST : UTTARA KANNADA.

¶9

….PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THROUGH BHATKAL RURAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY IT’S STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH, AT : DHARWAD.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶15

¶16

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND THE PETITIONERS KINDLY BE GRANTED ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH BHATKAL RURAL P.S. FIR CRIME NO.22 OF 2020 DATED 06.03.2020 FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 323, 504 AND 306 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioners under section 438 of Cr.P.C., for their release on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest in Crime No.22 of 2020 of Bhatkal Rural Police Station registered for the offences punishable under sections 323, 504 and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶20

The facts briefly stated are that on the complaint filed by the wife of the deceased, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that the complainant’s husband was doing

¶21

¶22

carpentry work and was also having mobile cart shop which was given to his brother Lokesh Naik and Rajesh Naik. The said persons were frequently quarrelling with complainant’s husband. On 15.11.2019 night at about 8.30 p.m. these petitioners have abused the complainant’s husband infront of wine shop and have also assaulted him. Therefore, on 16.11.2019 he has committed suicide by consuming poison. Despite complaint filed by the complainant, the police have tried to hush up the case registering it as UDR case under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and the accused have not been arrested. On registering the subsequent complaint, the police have taken up the investigation and are making attempt to arrest the petitioners.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP. Perused the records.

¶24

According to the complainant, on

¶25

16.11.2019 her husband has committed suicide by

¶26

¶27

consuming poison and on very next day a case has been registered as UDR case by the concerned police. Thereafter, another complaint was filed on 05.03.2020. In the said complaint it is stated that, her husband had left a death note before consuming poison. But the same has not been handed over to the police on 17.11.2019. Thereafter, on 05.03.2020 the death note has been handed over to the police. The allegations made in the complaint and the circumstances of the case narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not make out a primafacie case of involvement of the petitioners in commission of the offence under Section 306 of IPC. At this stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussion or to give any specific finding about these records as the same is not permissible while considering the bail application.

¶28

The Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 in the case of

¶29

¶30

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V/s State of

¶31

Maharashtra and others has observed as under:

¶32

viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

¶33

ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

¶34

x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.

¶35

Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional

¶36

¶37

cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record.

¶38

The main objection of the prosecution is that, in the event of granting bail to the petitioners are likely to interfere with the investigation. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.

¶39

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there are valid grounds for granting bail, subject to certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The petition filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶42

is allowed.

¶43

¶44

Petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. On their appearance, Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioners and shall enlarge them on bail subject to following conditions:

¶45

The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶46

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

¶47

The petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation;

¶48

The petitioners shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses;

¶49

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

The petitioners shall mark their attendance in respondent-Bhatkal Rural Police Station on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 5.000 p.m. until

¶53

submission of the final report.

¶54

SD/JUDGE

¶55

CKK

Lokesh S/O Nagappa Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh S/O Nagappa Naik 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sayed Mohammad S/O.Syed Mahibubsab Vs the State

Santosh S/O Peerappa Shirur Vs State of Karnataka

Basavaraj Singh @ Balavanth Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Ganesh @ Prathamesh Shivaji Gore Vs State of Karnataka

Vinayak S/O. Dharmanna Bidnal Vs the State of Karnataka by

Devendrappa S/O Fakkirappa Navalgund Vs the State of Karnataka