Allowed

Doddayya v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2020CRL.P/2660/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition filing under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail. The court noted the dispute involved family relations and property, with no evidence abetting suicide. Bail was granted subject to conditions including personal bonds and visiting the police station twice weekly.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail in Crime No.116/2020 granted subject to surrender within ten days, execution of personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 each, visiting police twice a week, and other conditions.

Doddayya Vs State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2660 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DODDAYYA AGED ABOUT 59, MAJOR S/O LATE DODDAYYA

¶9

SMT. HEMAVTHI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS W/O NAGESH

¶10

SMT. NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O DODDAYYA

¶11

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.36, UDIPALYA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU-560061.

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. DIWAKARA.K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAGGALIPURA POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶16

¶17

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. THEJESH.P., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.116/2020 OF KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARAM FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 149 306, 323, 324 AND 504 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.116/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 324, 504, 306 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶24

The case as made out in the statement of the

¶25

complainant before the police was that there was a proceeding between the parents of the complainant and

¶26

¶27

the petitioner No.1 pending before the Court of the Assistant Commissioner regarding a site measuring 16 feet x 24 feet. On 14.05.2020, at about 7.30 a.m., one Mr.Nagesh who was the cousin of the complainant was digging a pit in the site to drain sewage into it. At that time, the father of the complainant and his mother demanded him not to excavate in the site and in that regard, the said Nagesh and Hemalata abused them. The parents of the complainant returned back to avoid any quarrel. The father of the complainant left his house to inform the incident to the PDO of the Panchayath. Then the complainant, his mother, his sister went to the spot. It is stated that then the petitioner No.1 abused the mother of the complainant and also attempted to assault the complainant when the complainant questioned the petitioner No.1. Following thereafter, the children of the petitioner No.1, petitioner No.1 and his wife assaulted the complainant and his mother. It is stated that the petitioner and his mother

¶28

¶29

escaped from the spot and reached the main road at which point, father of the complainant was coming from Kaggalipura on a scooter. The father of the complainant was grieved by the act of the accused persons in harming the complainant, his family members in the presence of the general public. Thereafter, the father of the complainant is stated to have consumed poison and fell on the ground struggling. The deceased was thereafter taken in a rickshaw to the Primary Health Centre, where the doctors declared him brought dead. Based on the complaint, the police registered Crime No.116/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 324, 504, 306 r/w Section 149 of Indian Pena Code, 1860.

¶30

It is seen from the complaint that the

¶31

accused and the petitioners were all closely related to each other and the dispute was relating to a property.

¶32

There is no material on record to indicate that the

¶33

¶34

petitioners had abetted the suicide committed by the deceased. In that view of the matter and also in view of

¶35

the fact that the offences are neither punishable with death or life imprisonment, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail. Hence, the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶38

(ii) The petitioners are granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.116/2020 registered by the respondent – police, subject to the petitioners surrendering themselves before the police within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶39

(iii) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh only) each alongwith a surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶40

(iv) The petitioners shall not tamper or hamper the prosecution witnesses and

¶41

¶42

shall not intimidate or cause any annoyance to the complainant.

¶43

(v) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without the permission of the Court.

¶44

(vi) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer twice in a week that is on Monday and Friday between 10.30 am., and 2.30 pm., till the conclusion of the investigation.

¶45

(vii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the conclusion of the investigation.

¶46

Sd/- JUDGE

¶47

Doddayya v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doddayya v. 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 Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

A Narayana S/O Annu Shettigara Vs Gulabi v Rai (Since Dead)

Mr Abrar Yusuf Pandrowala Vs the State of Karnataka

K Laxmana Shetty Vs Sri S Sachin

Smt. Akkayamma Vs Lakshmi

Smt Padmabai Vs the State of Karnataka