Allowed

Shri.Jayapal S/O Ningappa Naganur v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2020CRL.P/101033/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant charged under the IPC and SC/ST (POA) Act for an eviction-related offence, imposing standard bail conditions including appearance before the IO and no-tampering.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted conditioned upon execution of a bond, appearance before Investigating Officer within two weeks, attending police station every 15 days, and cooperation with investigation.

Shri.Jayapal S/O Ningappa Naganur Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.P. NO. 101033 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI.JAYAPAL S/O NINGAPPA NAGANUR AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI. ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI.SHRIPRASAD J.JOSHI, ADV.)

¶9

AND

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH HARUGERI P.S.

¶11

APPASAB S/O.SHANKAR ARAKERI AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG DISTRICT: BELAGAVI – 591 220.

¶12

... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP FOR R1) (R2 – SERVED)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN WHO IS THE ACCUSED NO.3 IN HARUGERI P.S.CRIME NO.39/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 115, 120B, 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1)(g), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST ACT.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Shiprasad J.Joshi, appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent No.1 – State.

¶20

Petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.3 in Crime No.39/2020 of Harugeri police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(g), 3(2) (v-a) of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of

¶21

¶22

Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short referred to as ‘SC&ST (POA)Act’].

¶23

The second respondent/first informant has been served, but he is unrepresented.

¶24

It is alleged in the complaint lodged by Appasab Shankar Arakeri that he is a permanent resident of Harugeri. Since 21 years, he is cultivating and in possession of 8 acres of land in Survey No.280/1 and 280/2 of Harugeri Village. But one Smt.Paravva Venkatesh Kuduva (A1) a resident of Mumbai has been pressurizing him and trying to evict him from the said land. She had asked him to evict the land through the petitioner (accused No.3). When he did not agree for the same, accused No.1 had attempted to kill him by giving supari. Accused No.1 and her daughter Smt.Usha Vincent Koriya (accused No.2) have given supari to accused No.4 – Umesh, at the instigation of Accused No.3. One Dinesh Kuduva

¶25

¶26

son of accused No.1 has provided the audio recording of the telephonic conversation to the complainant. It is stated in the complaint that only for the reason that the complainant belongs to schedule caste, the accused persons are trying to evict him from his lawful possession of the land and he is having life threat from the accused persons.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶28

petitioner contends that the entire allegations are false. The petitioner is unnecessarily tagged and arrayed as an accused. There is a delay of 12 days in lodging the complaint. He further submits that accused Nos.1 and 2 are already enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court and the petitioner is ready and willing to abide any conditions which may be imposed on him and seeks to allow the petition.

¶29

¶30

Per contra, learned HCGP, contends that the investigation is still under progress. The name of the petitioner is found in the FIR. There is a prima-facie case against the petitioner having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of SC&ST(POA)Act. Therefore, she submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

I have perused the averments made in the complaint.

¶32

The allegation against the present

¶33

petitioner is that accused No.1 had informed the complainant through the petitioner asking him to vacate the land and at his instigation, accused No.1 and 3 gave supari to accused No.4-Umesh. Complainant has stated that he has got the audio recording of the telephonic conversation.

¶34

The bare perusal of complaint

¶35

averments does not disclose at this stage that the petitioner has committed any offence which would

¶36

¶37

attract the provisions of SC&ST(POA) Act. According to the prosecution, the telephonic conversation which took place on 15.02.2020 is between Accused No.1 and 4. Except the bald allegations, there is no material to show that any attempt was made by the accused persons to do away with the life of complainant. This Court already granted anticipatory bail to accused Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Petition No.100900/2020 vide order dated 27.08.2020. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a ground to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

a) Petition is allowed.

¶40

b) In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.39/2020 of Harugeri Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections

¶41

¶42

3(1)(g), 3(2) (v-a) of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶43

i) The petitioner/accused No.3 shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of two weeks from today and shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1 lakh with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶44

ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶45

iii) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police station once in 15 days till completion of the investigation.

¶46

iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶47

¶48

v) The petitioner shall furnish his correct address and shall intimate the change in address, if any.

¶49

vi) The petitioner shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Lad

Shri.Jayapal S/O Ningappa Naganur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Jayapal S/O Ningappa Naganur 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

Shri Mahadev S/O Shivappa Teli Vs the State of Karnataka

Muttappa S/O Shekappa Mamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Nitesh S/O Bennis Horta Vs the State of Karnataka

Samirbasha @ Basha S/O. Khajahussain Vs the State of Karnataka by

Veeresh @ Eranna S/O Balappa Tegginamane Vs the State of Karnataka

Vinayak S/O Ashok Kalaburgi Vs the State of Karnataka