Allowed

Shri.Ramesh S/O Malleshappa Mayannanavar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2021CRL.P/100501/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka enlarged the petitioner on bail in a criminal case involving affray, attempt to murder, and culpable homicide arising from a land dispute. The Court held that custodial interrogation was not required.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions not to commit offences, tamper with witnesses, or abscond.

Shri.Ramesh S/O Malleshappa Mayannanavar Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100501 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SHRI.RAMESH S/O MALLESHAPPA MAYANNANAVAR AGE 24 YEARS,OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O KONANAKERI,TQ SHIGGAON, DIST HAVERI-581193.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. B M PATIL, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI.RAMESH B CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE ON BAIL TO THE ABOVE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRIME NO.07/2021 REGISTERED, U/SEC.143, 147,148, 307,323, 324, 326, 427, 435, 447, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC BY THE BANKAPUR POLICE, SHIGGAON TALUKA, DISTRICT HAVERI, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIGGAON.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.7/2021 of Bankapur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 326, 427, 435, 447, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Smt Sudha Shyabal.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that, the informantSmt Sudha Shyabal lodged the first information against accused Nos.1 to 6 on 31.01.2021 at 9.15 p.m. stating that there was dispute between her family and that of the accused in the matter of agricultural land bearing Survey No.74/2 measuring 06 acres. The sugarcane was cultivated in the half portion of the land and on 25.01.2021 accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 forming themselves into unlawful assembly brought a tractor with rotator and criminally trespassed into the land that was cultivated by the

¶21

¶22

informant and her family members and destroyed the sapling. Thereby the accused caused loss of Rs.60,000/-. They have set fire to sugarcane seeds and caused loss of Rs.30,000/-. In this regard, a complaint was lodged with the elders in the village. On 31.01.2021, when the informant, along with her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, was in the field, the accused were in their agricultural land and at about 5.30 p.m. all the accused forming themselves into unlawful assembly, armed with club and chilly powder, came and started abusing the informant and other family members, assaulted them with club all over the body and thrown the chilly powder. The accused have also assaulted the father-in-law of the informant and caused grievous hurt. They have also criminally intimidated to takeaway the life of the informant and her family members and also tried to cause their death. Immediately, the injured were shifted to the Hospital. Therefore, the informant requested the police to register the case and initiate the action. Accordingly, police have registered the case and took up the investigation.

¶23

¶24

Heard the learned counsel Sri B.M.Patil, for the petitioner and learned HCGP Sri Ramesh Chigari for respondent-State.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was land dispute between the parties and therefore the police complaint came to be lodged arraying this petitioner as accused No.1. He has not committed any offences. There are no prima-facie materials to connect this petitioner to the offences in question. The petitioner/accused No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation. He is the permanent resident of Konanakeri village of Shiggaon Taluka. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶26

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the accused for having committed the offences. The injured person sustained two

¶27

¶28

fractures. The investigation is still going on. At this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of regular bail and he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

Perusal of the materials on record, in view of the rival contentions, the point that would arise for my consideration is,

¶30

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to be

¶31

enlarged on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶32

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

¶33

The informant lodged the first information on 31.01.2021 at 9.15 p.m. alleging commission of offences by accused Nos.1 to 4 on the same day at 5.30 p.m. It is stated that the injured had sustained two fractures along with other injuries. The medical records are made available in proof of the same. The present petitioner was apprehended on 03.02.2021 and he was subjected to interrogation. All these materials do not suggest that the present petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without

¶34

¶35

any basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused Nos.2 to 6 are already granted bail subject to condition imposed by this Court vide order dated 08.03.2021 in Crl.P.No.1000369/2021. The copy of which is made available for perusal of the Court. Even though the investigation is still under progress, admittedly, the present petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation. More over, injured is already discharged from the hospital. Even on parity the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be granted bail subject to condition which will take care of the apprehension by the learned HCGP that the petitioner may commit similar offence or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed.

¶38

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in

¶39

Crime No.7/2021 of Bankapur Police Station on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs

¶40

¶41

only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of

¶42

the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶43

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶44

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶45

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when required.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

VB/-

Shri.Ramesh S/O Malleshappa Mayannanavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Ramesh S/O Malleshappa Mayannanavar 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

Manjappa S/O Ganganagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Narayan S/O Nagendrappa Kalal

N K Kubendra Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Niyajbasha S/O. Abdul Rahaman Vs the State of Karnataka

Honnappa S/O. Hanamantappa Koravar Vs State of Karnataka

V.M. Muniswami S/O. Hanumappa Vs the State of Karnataka