Allowed

Erappa S/O Late Thimmappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2021CRL.P/100459/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to eight petitioners accused of rape-related offences and unlawful assembly, allowing arrest bail subject to furnishing a bond and conditions against tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Permission to enlarge on bail in the event of arrest, subject to bond of Rs. 2,00,000 and conditions including appearance before IO and no tampering with witnesses.

Erappa S/O Late Thimmappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100459/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ERAPPA S/O LATE THIMMAPPA,

¶9

AGE: 49 YEARS,

¶10

UMMANNA S/O JAYAPRAKASH,

¶11

AGE: 42 YEARS,

¶12

GOVINDAPPA S/O GURUSWAMY,

¶13

AGE: 40 YEARS,

¶14

URUKUNDAPPA S/O LATE THIMMAPPA,

¶15

AGE: 39 YEARS,

¶16

MOHAN KUMAR S/O B. ERAPPA,

¶17

AGE: 25 YEARS,

¶18

YERRISWAMY S/O B. ERAPPA, AGE: 23 YEARS,

¶19

NEELAMMA W/O B.ERAPPA,

¶20

AGE: 45 YEARS,

¶21

¶22

RATHNAMMA W/O URUKUNDAPPA, AGE: 34 YEARS,

¶23

ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS, R/O: MOKA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST :BALLARI.

¶24

...PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI:J. BASAVARAJ, ADV.)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH MOKA POLICE STATION) REP.BY IT STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶28

…..RESPONDENT

¶29

(BY SRI:RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 8/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 8 ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.9/2021 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354-B, 504, 506(ii) READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC REGISTERED BY MOKA POLICE STATION, TQ AND DISTRICT: BALLARI, PENDING INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL OF THE CASE.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 8 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.9/2021 of Moka Police Station, initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354-B, 504, 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC' for the sake of brevity), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Jayamma Majjige.

¶35

Brief facts of the case are that, the informant lodged the first information on 09.02.2021 stating that on 07.01.2021 at about 4.00 p.m., while she along with her sister-in-law-Bhagyamma and her sister-Parvathi were working in the land belonging to them situated at Moka Village, accused No.1 criminally trespassed into the land, started abusing the informant and others in filthy language. When the informant questioned his high handed acts, suddenly accused No.1, who is the uncle of informant went away from the scene of occurrence with an intention to gather other persons. Thereafter, he came along with accused Nos.2 to 8, forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed

¶36

¶37

with deadly weapons like sickle, club and iron rod. The accused pulled the informant with an intention to outrage her modesty and torn her nighty, broken her bangles and also assaulted her with club, iron rod and sickle. Accused No.1 threatened the informant to take away her life. The informant fell down due to the high handed acts. Accused-Neelamma and Ratnamma were instigating other accused to commit the offences. Immediately, the neighboring persons came to the spot. The accused criminally intimidated the informant to finish her by assaulting her and went away from the scene of occurrence. They also threatened to finish all the family members of the informant. The injured was taken to her house. Witness stated that on 08.01.2021, she was taken to the hospital and thereafter she took rest in the house. Since her brother and mother were not in the village, she discussed about the incident with her mother and brother and lodged the first information, requesting the police to register the case and to initiate legal action against the accused for the above said offences. Accordingly, the police registered the case against the accused and took up investigation.

¶38

¶39

Heard Sri.J. Basavaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Ramesh B. Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶40

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that

¶41

the petitioners are innocent and law abiding citizens. They have not committed any offences as alleged. They are falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. According to the informant, the incident had taken place on 07.01.2021 but the first information was lodged on 09.02.2021. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. They have not given any satisfactory explanation for the delay. Since there was civil dispute between the parties, who are relatives, a false complaint came to be lodged. The informant did not sustain any injuries. The medical records show that she has taken treatment as out patient. Wound certificate discloses that she had sustained only tenderness and no injuries corresponding to the weapons said to have been used in commission of the offences. No specific overt acts are alleged against each of the accused. These petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation. The petitioners are the permanent residents of

¶42

¶43

the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, they pray for allowing the petition in the interest of justice.

¶44

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. Accused No.1 criminally trespassed into the agricultural land, outraged the modesty of the victim and tried to take away her life by assaulting her with sickle, club and iron rod. She has taken treatment in the hospital. He further contended that the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.3 is a rowdy sheeter, who is having series of criminal cases registered against him. Under such circumstances, if he is granted anticipatory bail, there is every chances of accused committing similar offences or threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses or there may be a chance of their abscondance. Under such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶45

¶46

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned

¶47

counsel for both the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is:

¶48

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.? ”

¶49

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the

¶50

following:

¶51

REASONS

¶52

The allegations made against the petitioners for having committed the offences are of serious nature. However, there is delay in lodging the first information and the informant had assigned some reasons for such delay. It is not in dispute that the informant took treatment as out patient. Admittedly, these petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation. Even though, it is stated that petitioner-accused No.3 is a rowdy sheeter, the copy of the register produced by the learned HCGP disclose that several criminal cases were registered against him in Moka Police Station during 2010, 2012 and 2013. Subsequently, it appears that no such criminal cases are registered against

¶53

¶54

him. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that these petitioners are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioners may abscond or tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶55

In view of the above, I answer the point in

¶56

‘Affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

The petition is allowed.

¶59

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No9/2021 of Moka Police Station.

¶60

The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on their appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge them on bail subject to following conditions:-

¶61

a. The petitioners shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties for the likesum

¶62

¶63

to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶64

b. The petitioners shall not commit similar offences;

¶65

c. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; and

¶66

d. The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

KGK

Erappa S/O Late Thimmappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Erappa S/O Late Thimmappa 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Annappa Kallappa Nayar Vs Sri.Iranna Kallappa Galibi

Shri Husainsab Imran S/O Hasansab Shaikh Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Maheshkumar S/O Achayya Kastala Vs the State of Karnataka

Yallappa S/O. Neelappa Doddamani Vs Santosh S/O. Balappa Danammanavar

The City Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd. Vs Ram Gajanan Khatavkar

Ismail S/O Khalandarsab Kunkur Vs the State of Karnataka