The High Court of Karnataka refused anticipatory bail to an accused who was absconding, despite her reliance on bail granted to co-accused and cited precedents, due to serious charges and failure to avail investigation.
Right to anticipatory bail was denied; the petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.P. No.101123 OF 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION No.101123 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
MAHADEVI @ MADEVI W/O RAMANAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A KADUR VILLAGE KUHSTAGI TALUK KOPPAL DISTRICT-583227 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AVIN TIPPANNA HANAMAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HANUMASAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH HIGH COURT BUILDING DHARWAD-580011 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.KALSURMUTT, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING RELEASE THE PETITIONER/A2 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST, BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE, OR ON THE APPEARANCE OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE, LEARNED JMFC, KUSHTAGI, IN HANUMASARA POLICE STATION CRIME NO.9/220 (CC NO.396/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED JMFC, KUSHTAGI), FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 AND ETC.
CRL.P. No.101123 OF 2020
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
was working as Panchayat Development Officer, petitioner-accused No.2 was the president of the
CRL.P. No.101123 OF 2020
3
said Panchayat and accused No.3 is brother-in-law of accused No.2.
CRL.P. No.101123 OF 2020
4
submits that accused No.1 and 3 have been enlarged on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.Nos.100496/2020 and 100498/2020, respectively. On this ground he submits that the petitioner is also be treated on parity with the said accused Nos. 1 and 3 who have been enlarged on anticipatory bail.
CRL.P. No.101123 OF 2020
5
petitioner even now is absconding though a charge sheet has been filed on the basis of the investigation conducted with reference to the available resources. The petitioner has kept away from the investigation and continues to be absconding without being of assistance to the jurisdiction police. If at all there is any defence on the part of the petitioner, same can be considered during the investigation or during the trial. Learned HCGP further submits that the provisions and/or reliefs under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are not to be extended to the accused who was absconding, more so when a charge sheet has already been filed and even till now she has been absconding. On this ground he seeks for rejection of the application.
CRL.P. No.101123 OF 2020
6
training and was not so closely associated to the incident of suicide and hence, this court had granted anticipatory bail to accused No.1.
CRL.P. No.101123 OF 2020
7
default bail, there is no order on merits insofar as order of bail granted in respect of accused No.3.
CRL.P. No.101123 OF 2020
8
above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner would not be entitled for such anticipatory bail.
CRL.P. No.101123 OF 2020
9
proper case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
ln
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, who is an absconding accused with serious allegations against her, is entitled to anticipatory bail despite claims of parity with other accused granted bail.
Whether the belated filing of the complaint affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Whether the principle from prior judgments mandates the grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving abetment to suicide.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ravindra Saxena –v- State of RajasthanRelied on¶46
Ravindra Saxena –v- State of Rajasthan (2010) 1 SCC 684 · Who else cites this
Bharat Chaudhary and another -v- State of Bihar and anotherRelied on¶46
Bharat Chaudhary and another -v- State of Bihar and another (2003)8 SCC 77 · Who else cites this
A.K.Chaudhary and another –v- State of Gujarat and othersDistinguished¶50
A.K.Chaudhary and another –v- State of Gujarat and others (2006 Crl.L.J. 726)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahadevi @ Madevi W/o Ramanagouda Patil
State of Karnataka
Suraj Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
