Allowed

Shri.Hanamant Appasab Shirahatti v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2020CRL.P/100663/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner was accused of supplying materials used in milk adulteration. The court allowed bail subject to personal bond, attendance, and conditions against tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of similar amount. Conditions include weekly attendance, no tampering with witnesses, and no leaving jurisdictio

Shri.Hanamant Appasab Shirahatti Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^{T H} DAY OF JULY, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100663/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI HANAMANT APPASAB SHIRAHATTI AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INGALAGI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI HARSHAWARDHAN M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.H.PATIL, ADVOCATE.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AIGALI POLICE STATION, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP.)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN AIGALI PS CRIME NO.28/2020

¶16

¶17

FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 272, 273 AND 328 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 54, 57 AND 59 OF FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT, 2006 AND FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARD RULES, 2011, ETC.,.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed by accused under

¶21

section 438 of Cr.P.C., for release on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.28/2020 of Aigali P.S., Dist: Belagavi, registered for the offences punishable under sections 272, 273, 328 of IPC and under sections 54, 57, 59 of Food Safety and Standard Act 2006 and Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011.

¶22

The facts briefly stated in the petition are that, on the report submitted by the Police Inspector DCIB unit, Belagavi, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that, on receiving credible information about the adulteration of milk, the complainant Police

¶23

¶24

Inspector and other staff visited Junjarwad village and conducted raid in a shed at the place R.S.No.143 where a person called UmarAli Hajisab Ansari was involved in adulterating the milk with some materials which are hazardous to the life of the people. The material found in the spot were seized. On enquiry, accused No.1 UmarAli Hajaresab Ansari informed that the petitioner Hanamant Appasab Shirahatti is providing the materials for adulteration. Thus, on the said information the police have registered the case against the petitioner and he has been arraigned as accused No.2. On registering the complaint, the police officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioner.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the

¶26

respondent State. Perused the prosecution papers available at this stage.

¶27

¶28

It is the submission of the learned

¶29

counsel for the petitioner that only on the basis of the information said to have been disclosed by accused No.1, who has been apprehended at the spot, the police officers have falsely implicated the petitioner in this case. There is no convincing material evidence to show that the petitioner was supplying the material for adulteration. In the event of arrest and detention, the petitioner would be put to great hardship.

¶30

Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that as per the information it is evident that the petitioner was supplying the hazardous material for adulteration of milk which affects the health of the consumers. Thus, having committed the heinous crime, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

¶31

The complaint averments disclose that on the basis of the information given by accused

¶32

¶33

No.1, the petitioner has been arraigned as

¶34

accused No.2. At this stage no other material is forthcoming to show that the petitioner had supplied material to accused No.1 for the purpose of adulteration of milk. The grounds stated by the counsel go to prove the apprehension of the petitioner’s arrest and detention.

¶35

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

¶36

For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶37

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition filed under section 438 of

¶40

Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶41

The petitioner/accused No.2 shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The Investigating Officer shall interrogate and enlarge the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail.

¶42

The petitioner/accused No.2 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.28/2020 of Aigali P.S., Dist: Belagavi, on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶43

The petitioner/accused No.2 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶44

¶45

The petitioner/accused No.2 shall mark his attendance in the concerned police station on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.

¶46

The petitioner/accused No.2 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission, till the disposal of the case.

¶47

If the petitioner/accused No.2 violates any of the conditions, the bail order automatically

¶48

stands cancelled.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Mrk/-

Shri.Hanamant Appasab Shirahatti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Hanamant Appasab Shirahatti 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.Manjunath S/O Ningappa Yeddalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Maltesh S/O. Chikkappa Nellibidu Vs Sunita W/O. Parameshappa Kadappanavar

Khajameer S/O Basir Saab Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Vinayak Prabhakar Tarlekar Vs State of Karnataka

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

Ramanna S/O Mahadevappa Dhooli Vs the State of Karnataka