Partly allowed

Hadapada Basavaraj S/O Hadapada Yerriswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Oct 2020CRL.P/101119/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a CRPC anticipation bail petition, the High Court of Karnataka rejected the plea of the accused who caused grievous injury in a sudden quarrel involving assault. It allowed bail for the other accused subject to conditions like appearance before IO, cooperation with investigation, and regular trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners No.1 and No.3; petition of petitioner No.2 rejected.

Hadapada Basavaraj S/O Hadapada Yerriswamy Vs the… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101119 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HADAPADA BASAVARAJ, S/O. HADAPADA YERRISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶9

OCC: BARBER,

¶10

HADAPADA SHIVARAJ, S/O. HADAPADA YERRISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: BARBER,

¶11

HADAPADA YERRISWAMY, S/O. LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶12

OCC: BARBER,

¶13

ALL ARE R/O. KOLURU VILLAGE, 4^TH WARD, TALUK: KURUGOD, DIST: BALLARI. … PETITIONERS

¶14

[BY SRI. VIJAY S.CHINIWAR, ADV.]

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD, BY ITS SUB-INSPECTOR, KURUGOD POLICE STATION, KURUGOD CIRCLE, DIST: BALLARI. … RESPONDENT [BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP.]

¶17

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THE ARREST OF THE PETITIONERS BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE/KURUGOD P.S., KURUGOD CIRCLE, DIST: BALLARI IN CRIME NO.109/2020, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 326, 504, 354(B), 506 R/W. 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDL. JMFC., BALLARI.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.109/2020 of Kurugod Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 504, 354(B), 506 r/w. 34 of IPC.

¶22

2. Brief facts:

¶23

The complaint is lodged by one Sri.

¶24

P.Sannasheakshavali alleging that on 31.07.2020 at about 5.00 p.m., when he was parking his vehicle in front of his house, at that time, accused No.1 who was in his hair cutting shop, picked up quarrel with him telling him not to park the vehicle in front of his shop. Accused No.1 assaulted him on his head with an iron rod and accused

¶25

¶26

No.2 assaulted him with a stone. When the wife of the complainant intervened, accused No.1 pulled her by holding the sari, accused Nos.2 and 3 also assaulted her. Thereafter, accused No.3 threatened them with dire consequences etc.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even according to the prosecution, the incident has occurred in a sudden quarrel. The injured have been discharged on the very same day. Petitioners have no bad antecedents. He submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by this Court and accordingly seeks to allow the petition.

¶28

On the other hand, learned HCGP contends that investigation is still in progress. The injured have sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, in the event of release of the petitioners, they may not co-operate with the investigation and they may flee from justice.

¶29

¶30

Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the children of

¶31

accused No.3. The incident occurred on 31.07.2020 at about 5.00 p.m. The complaint averments discloses that when the complainant parked his vehicle in front of the hair cutting shop of accused No.1, a quarrel took place and in the said quarrel, accused persons assaulted the complainant and his wife. In so far as the injury sustained by wife of the complainant, the same is stated to be simple in nature. According to the prosecution, accused No.1 assaulted with an iron rod on the head of the complainant and accused No.2 picked-up a stone and assaulted on his mouth; on account of which he sustained fracture of right incisor. The said injury is stated to be grievous in nature. In the wound certificate, the description of injury sustained on the head is not mentioned.

¶32

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶33

case and also considering that accused No.2 has caused grievous injury to the complainant, I am of the view that he is not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶34

¶35

However, accused Nos.1 and 3 can be released on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Accordingly, the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Petition is partly allowed.

¶38

Petition in respect of accused No.2/petitioner No.2 is hereby rejected.

¶39

Petition in respect of accused Nos.1 and 3/petitioner Nos.1 and 3 is allowed.

¶40

In the event of arrest of accused Nos.1 and 3/petitioner Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.109/2020 of Kurugod Police Station, registered for the offence under Sections 323, 324, 326, 504, 354(B), 506 r/w. 34 of IPC., they shall be released subject to the following:

¶41

(i) Petitioner Nos.1 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 3 shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and they shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-

¶42

¶43

[Rupees Fifty Thousand Only], with two sureties for the likesum.

¶44

(ii) Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 shall co-operate with the investigation and they shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶45

(iii) Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 shall mark their attendance before the concerned Police Station once in 15 days till filing of the final report.

¶46

(iv) Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 shall be regular in attending the trial proceedings.

¶47

(v) Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 shall furnish the proof of their correct address and shall intimate the change in address, if any.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Ksm*

Hadapada Basavaraj S/O Hadapada Yerriswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hadapada Basavaraj S/O Hadapada Yerriswamy 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

Smt Jayalakshmi K.B. W/O Late Hanumanthappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Veeresh S/O Prakash Sotnal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shanu S/O. Rajesab Mannanayak Vs the State of Karnataka

Basayya S/O Mallayya Chikkamath Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath S/O Narayana Bandekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Gagan Ananth @ Anand Sannakki Vs the State of Karnataka