Allowed

K M Gurubasavaraj S/O Marularadhya v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2020CRL.P/101153/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought anticipatory bail for alleged offences under Sections 354B, 506, and 354 of IPC. Addressing the one-year delay in filing the complaint and the petitioner's transfer, the court imposed bail conditions, including execution of a bond and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to execution of a bond for Rs. 2 lakhs with two sureties, appearance before the IO within 10 days, and cooperation with the investigation.

K M Gurubasavaraj S/O Marularadhya Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.P. NO.101153 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K M GURUBASAVARAJ S/O MARULARADHYA AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: TAHASILDAR, DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, KOPPAL, R/O: KOPPAL, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. K L PATIL & T HANUMAREDDY, ADVS.) AND

¶8

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KUSHTAGI POLICE STATION, KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. ..RESPONDENT (BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGG)

¶9

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER / SOLE ACCUSED ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN CRIME NO.216/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE KUSHTAGI POLICE STATION, KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.354(B), 506 AND 354 OF IPC.

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

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

¶14

seeking to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in Crime No.216/2020 of Kushtagi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354B, 506 and 354 of IPC.

¶15

In the complaint lodged on 27.08.2020, the complainant has alleged that she is working as Village Accountant at Kushtagi since 26.06.2016. During September 2018 the accused-petitioner was transferred from Koppal to Kushtagi. He used to talk to her over phone indecently for which she warned him but he did not heed to her words and continued the same. Once in the month of August 2019 when she was in her office, the accused suddenly came from behind and embraced and kissed her. When she objected and told him that she will lodge a complaint,

¶16

¶17

he threatened her not to disclose the matter to anyone or else he will remove her husband and herself from the job. On 26.08.2020 at about 10.30 a.m., a video clip of the said incident was circulated in social media and TV. Hence, she informed the matter to her husband and other family members.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an inordinate delay of about one year in lodging the complaint. He submits that the petitioner is innocent, law abiding, peace loving citizen and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. He submits that the allegations are made at the instigation of the persons inimical towards the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was transferred from Kushtagi to Bengaluru on 18.10.2019 itself. Now a departmental enquiry has been initiated against him. He further submits that if the petitioner is arrested, the reputation of his family will be at

¶19

¶20

stake. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly he seeks to allow the petition.

¶21

Per contra, the learned HCGP submits that that the investigation is still in progress. The petitioner being a responsible person has committed a heinous offence. There is a prima-facie case against him. The petitioner is absconding and in the event of release of the petitioner he may not cooperate with the investigation. Accordingly, he seeks to reject the petition.

¶22

The incident is alleged to have taken place from 01.08.2019 to 31.08.2019 and till 27.08.2020 there was no complaint lodged. It is stated that on 26.08.2020 a video clip of the incident which took place in August 2019 was displayed in social media and thereafter the complainant informed the matter to

¶23

¶24

her husband and other family members. The complainant has alleged that since the petitioner had threatened her, she did not disclose the incident till then.

¶25

There is a delay of nearly one year in lodging the complaint. The contents of the video clip circulated in the social media and its authenticity is the subject matter of investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been now transferred from Kushtagi. The departmental enquiry is in progress in respect of the incident in question. The allegations made against the petitioner have to be established in due course. The apprehension of the High Court Government Pleader can be safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. Hence, the following:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

a) Petition is allowed.

¶28

¶29

b) In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.216/2020 of Kushtagi Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 354B, 506 and 354 of IPC he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶30

i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.2 lakhs with two sureties for the likesum.

¶31

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

¶32

iii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation as and when called for.

¶33

iv) The petitioner shall furnish the correct proof of his residential address and

¶34

¶35

shall intimate the change in address, if any.

¶36

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

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

lad

K M Gurubasavaraj S/O Marularadhya v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K M Gurubasavaraj S/O Marularadhya 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

Basayya S/O Mallayya Chikkamath Vs the State of Karnataka

Hadapada Basavaraj S/O Hadapada Yerriswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath S/O Narayana Bandekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Akshay S/O Ashok Kammar Vs the State of Karnataka

Gutteppa S/O Bhimappa Karibheemannanavar Vs State of Karnataka

Sagar S/O Chandrakanth Talpankar Vs the State of Karnataka