Allowed

Krishna S/O Devappa Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2020CRL.P/100760/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners accused of assault and abuse under IPC and SC/ST Act. Court held specific allegations did not attract prohibitions under Section 18/18-A of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail in event of arrest with bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties; regular appearance; no tampering with evidence or witnesses; appearance before IO; no leaving jurisdiction

Krishna S/O Devappa Naik Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

: 1 : Crl.P.No.100760/2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100760/2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Krishna S/o.Devappa Naik, Age 65 years, Occ: Agriculture,

¶9

Ajit S/o. Krishna Naik, Age 25 years, Occ: Student,

¶10

Both R/o.: Kekkar, Bastimakki, Tq.: Honnavar, Dist.: Karwar.

¶11

… Petitioners

¶12

(By Shri Shivakumar S.Badawadagi, Advocate)

¶13

And:

¶14

The State of Karnataka, Through SPP, High Court of Karnataka, High Court Building, Dharwad, Through Honnavar Police Station, Dist.: Karwar.

¶15

Smt.Parameshwari W/o. Tulusu Mukri, Age 40 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.: Kekkar, Bastimakki, Tq.: Honnavar, Dist.: Karwar.

¶16

… Respondents

¶17

(By Miss Seema Shiva Naik, HCGP for R1; Respondent No.2 – served)

¶18

This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking to allow the above criminal petition and further order

¶19

Crl.P.No.100760/2020

¶20

: 2 :

¶21

that the petitioners be released on anticipatory bail registered by Honnavar Police in Crime NO.21/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 324, 354, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) of the SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 2015.

¶22

This petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court seeking to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Honnavar P.S. Crime No.21/2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 324, 354, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) of the SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 2015

¶25

The case of the prosecution is that one Parameshwari Tulusu Mukri had filed a complaint on 21.01.2020 alleging that on that day, when she, her husband and their son were in the house and in the process of parking a car owned by her son, at that time, the accused came and abused them in filthy language,

¶26

Crl.P.No.100760/2020

¶27

: 3 :

¶28

assaulted her husband and son with a stick and tried to pull the complainant by holding her saree and blouse and when she cried out, hearing her cry, the neighbourers came to the spot. On seeing the neighbourers the accused ran away from the spot giving life threat to the complainant and her family members. It is on this basis, the above complaint has been registered for the above offences.

¶29

Shri Shivakukmar S.Badawadagi, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the entire reading of the complaint does not make out any offences under SC/ST (POA) Amended Act, 2018. Though the allegations are made against the petitioners of assault, no injury is said to have been caused to the complainant and/or to the family members. The entire complaint is false and therefore he submits that the petitioners ought to be enlarged on anticipatory bail, since otherwise the petitioners would be harassed unnecessarily. He further submits that the petitioners

¶30

: 4 : Crl.P.No.100760/2020

¶31

would co-operative with the investigation as also to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court.

¶32

Per contra, Miss Seema Shiva Naik, learned HCGP for the respondent-State would submit that the matter is still under investigation; there is requirement of the petitioners for custodial interrogation and there being serious allegations made in the matter, the petitioners ought not to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶33

Heard Shri Shivakumar S.Badawadagi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Miss Seema Shiva Naik, learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the papers.

¶34

Having perused the allegations made in the complaint, I find that there are no particular allegations, which have been made so as to attract the provisions of SC/ST (POA) amended Act, 2018, so as to bar this Court form exercising its power for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners under Sections 18

¶35

Crl.P.No.100760/2020

¶36

: 5 :

¶37

and 18-A of the Act. In view of the same, I pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitionersaccused Nos.1 and 2 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.21 of 2020 of Honnavar P.S., on the following conditions:

¶40

(i) The petitioners shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial court;

¶41

(ii) The petitioners shall be regular in appearing before the Court on every date of hearing as also when called upon to do so by the trial Court;

¶42

(iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or cause any threat to any of the prosecution witness/s in any manner.

¶43

Crl.P.No.100760/2020

¶44

: 6 :

¶45

(iv) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called and submit all documents and details as may be called upon by the Investigating Officer.

¶46

(v) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission.

¶47

(vi) In the event of violation of any of the above terms, the above bail shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶48

The observation made above is only for the purpose of consideration of the application for bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The trial Court shall dispose of the matter on merits without being influenced by this order.

¶49

SD/JUDGE

¶50

Vnp*

Krishna S/O Devappa Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna S/O Devappa 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs Mr. Vinay Kumar Ramaiah

Fakeeragouda S/O Siddanagouda Patil Vs Smt. Smita D/O Onijaguni Ulligeri

Shri.Kallappa S/O Timmappa Sarwad Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri.T.M. Sanna Kotraiah S/O Shivamurthaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Paravva W/O Venkatesh Kuduva Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shamavva Vs the State of Karnataka