Dismissed

Anusuya D/O Annappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2020CRL.P/100648/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in a murder case involving two accused. The Court examined the charge sheet and found no grounds for false implication of the petitioner. The petition was rejected, dismissing the objection to the rejection of bail by the Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

Anusuya D/O Annappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100648/2020

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

ANUSUYA D/O ANNAPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOK, WORKING AT BCM HOSTEL, ITTIGI, ITTIGI VILLAGE, TQ: HOOVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI S.H.MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA P.S.I., ITAGI POLICE STATION, HOSAPETE, DISTRICT: BALLARI, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN ITAGI POLICE STATION CRIME NO.67/2019 (C.C.NO.506/2019) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HOOVINAHADAGALI REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 R/W 34 OF I.P.C.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition is filed by the accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in Itagi Police Station Crime No.67/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. (C.C.No.506/2019 pending before the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C.,

¶18

Hoovinahadagali).

¶19

The prosecution case is that on the complaint filed by Smt.Anusuya-wife of the deceased, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that there was rivalry between her husband-Gangappa and accused No.1 regarding user of the road in agriculture land belonging to them. In that connection, there was a civil dispute, which was decided in

¶20

¶21

favour of the complainant’s husband. When the complainant’s husband intended to sell the property, accused Nos.1 and 2 have quarreled with the purchasers and the complainant. Then accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with stone and accused No.2-petitioner was holding the hands of the deceased. When the complainant shouted for help, the neighbours came to the spot. On account of the assault done by accused No.1, the victim died on the spot.

¶22

On registering the said complaint, the police have conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. Accused No.1 is arrested and the police officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioner-accused No.2. The bail petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 before the Sessions Court was rejected.

¶23

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the charge sheet records.

¶25

It is pertinent to note that the complaint is filed by the eyewitness, who is the wife of the deceased victim. There are specific allegations that the petitioner-accused No.2 was holding the hands of the deceased and accused No.1 assaulted with stone on the chest of the deceased as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. There are no doubtful circumstances to hold that the petitioner-accused No.2 was not present at the spot or she was not holding the hands of the

¶26

¶27

deceased when accused No.1 was assaulting the victim. Thus, there are no valid grounds to indicate that the petitioner-accused No.2 has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶28

The learned Sessions Court has

¶29

discussed about the entire records and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Sessions Court has come to the conclusion that the order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner and the ground of innocence cannot be applied merely on the assumption and presumption. At this stage, there are no grounds to prove the frivolity of the case or false implication. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the learned Sessions Court cannot be faulted with.

¶30

¶31

In the facts and circumstances of the

¶32

case, this Court is of the view that there are no valid grounds for granting bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The criminal petition is rejected.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

CLK

Anusuya D/O Annappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anusuya D/O Annappa 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Vinayak Prabhakar Tarlekar Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Hanamant Appasab Shirahatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Hanamant S/O Gurling Teli Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramjeej Ahmed S/O Sayyed Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka

Ningaraj S/O Shivanand Harlapur Vs the State of Karnataka

Dhirajtinekar S/O Vitthal Tinekar Vs State of Karnataka