Allowed

Chetan S/O Hanamanthappa Pujar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2020CRL.P/101268/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a Criminal Petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for the petitioner accused of assaulting medical staff and damaging hospital property. The court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and granted bail subject to specific conditions regarding appearance, sureties, and witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in Crime No.163/2020 subject to execution of a bond with two sureties, appearance before the Investigation Officer within two weeks, non-tampering with witnesses, and regul

Chetan S/O Hanamanthappa Pujar Vs the State of Karnataka — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.P.NO.101268/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

CHETAN S/O HANAMANTHAPPA PUJAR AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DURGA NAGAR, CHINCHALI, TQ AND DIST: GADAG. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADV.) AND:

¶8

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION, DISTRICT GADAG, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT

¶9

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶10

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED NO.1 IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.163/2020 OF GADAG

¶11

¶12

RURAL POLICE STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 353, 504 R/W 149 OF IPC AND U/S 4 OF PROHIBITION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST MEDICARE SERVICE PERSONNEL AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY IN MEDICARE SERVICE INSTITUTION ACT.

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶16

and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 438

¶18

of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.163/2020 of Gadag Rural Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 353, 504 r/w 149 of IPC and under Section 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Violence against Medicare Service Personnel and Damage to Property in Medicare Service

¶19

Institutions Act.

¶20

¶21

The complaint is lodged by one

¶22

Dr.P.S.Busareddi, Director, KIMS Hospital, Gadag. It is stated that on 31/8/2020 at about 1.19 p.m., one person by name Doddahanamanthappa Durgappa Pujar aged

¶23

about 59 years, resident of Chinchali was admitted to the hospital. In spite of the treatment given by the medical staff, he died at about 4.30 p.m. In this connection, the petitioner and other accused persons started quarrelling with the medical staff and abused them. They destroyed the properties of the hospital and used criminal force against the medical staff, thereby preventing them from discharging their duty.

¶24

Complaint came to be lodged against the petitioner and 15 to 20 others. The deceased is stated to be the father of the petitioner herein.

¶25

¶26

As per the complaint, the deceased had

¶27

complained of cough, diabetes, breathlessness and his throat swab was taken for Covid-19 test. In spite of best treatment given to him, he died in the hospital. According to the prosecution, it is this petitioner who brought around 15 to 20 people to the hospital and caused damage to the properties of the hospital and committed the aforesaid offences.

¶28

It is no doubt, there is no justification

¶29

for the petitioner or any other persons to cause damage to the property of the hospital or to assault the medical staff. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent. He has been named in the FIR only on the ground that he is the son of the deceased.

¶30

¶31

It is not in dispute that other accused

¶32

persons namely accused Nos.2 to 8 are arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate and they are enlarged on bail. The maximum sentence prescribed for the alleged offences are up to three years. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

¶33

The learned HCGP submits that in the event of release of the petitioner, he may not cooperate with the investigation and he may flee from justice. The said apprehension can be safeguarded by imposing suitable conditions. Hence, the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Petition is allowed.

¶36

In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.163/2020 of Gadag Rural Police Station, he shall be released subject to the following conditions:

¶37

¶38

i) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer within a period of two weeks from today and shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶39

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

¶40

iii) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Jurisdictional police station once in fifteen days, till filing of the final report.

¶41

iv) Petitioner shall furnish proof of his address and shall intimate the Court regarding change of address, if any.

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Vmb

Chetan S/O Hanamanthappa Pujar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan S/O Hanamanthappa Pujar 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

Siddalingesh S/O Chansangappa Kudleppanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

T. Anjinappa S/O Durugappa Vs the State of Karnataka

S.M. Veeresh S/O S.M. Kotradevaru Vs the State of Karnataka

Kanchikeri Manjunatha @ Manjanna @ Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Vijaykumar S/O Chandrashekarappa Matti Vs State of Karnataka

Krishna @ Katraju S/O Eranna Vs the State of Karnataka