Allowed

Gopal S/O Yallappa Hujarathi v. the State

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2021CRL.P/200527/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Court, noting the absence of injuries on the complainant and the petitioner's arrest history, directed the petitioner to appear for investigation and be interrogated by a specific time before enlarging him on bail.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; petitioner directed to appear for investigation and be interrogated by 6 p.m. on same day before being enlarged on bail.

Gopal S/O Yallappa Hujarathi Vs the State — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.200527/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GOPAL S/O YALLAPPA HUJARATHI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE R/O. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NANDKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE THROUGH SHORAPUR POLICE STATION NOW REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. SPP, HCKB AT KALABURAGI

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S. 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE CONCERNED RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN CRIME NO.253/2018 OF SHORAPUR POLICE STATION, DIST.YADGIR, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 143, 114, 147, 148, 448, 323, 427, 307, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC (JN.DN) SHORAPUR IN C.C.NO.332/2019.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.332/2019 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC (Jr.Dn.), Shorapur.

¶20

Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the Revision Petition are as under:

¶21

Upon the complaint lodged by Bailappa S/o Timmanna Tiralayar, Shorapur police have registered a case in Crime No.253/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 114, 147, 148, 448, 323, 427, 307, 504, 506 r/w section 149 of IPC.

¶22

In the complaint averments it is stated that on 16.05.2018 at about 2:00 p.m. when he was sleeping in the office room, which is situated in front of the house of Vithal Yadav at Surapur, accused persons came there and abused the complainant and pulled him out and attempted to assault him with knife. It is also contended that there

¶23

¶24

was a fist injury and they snatched gold and cash to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Police after registration of the case are investigating the matter. In the meantime, accused person approached the District Court Yadgir in Criminal Misc.No.744/2019, which was dismissed by order dated 31.12.2019. Despite best efforts, police could not trace the petitioner and filed abscondence charge sheet against the petitioner herein.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that wound certificate which is part of the records would clearly indicate that there is no external injuries at all and in order to glorify the incident, Section 307 of IPC has been invoked by the prosecution. He also argued that the petitioner never absconded but police did not arrest him.

¶26

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader argued that very fact that petitioner is absconding even after dismissal of his request for grant of anticipatory bail on 31.12.2019 before the learned Sessions Judge itself shows that petitioner is not law abiding citizen and sought

¶27

¶28

for dismissal of petition. He also argued that the custodial interrogation may be necessary. Therefore, petition is to be rejected.

¶29

Having heard the parties and perused the material on record, it is seen that there is no injuries noted at all in the wound certificate of the complainant. Therefore, the gravity of offence is reduced to considerable extent.

¶30

Suffice to say that the very fact that petitioner is absconding resulted in filing abscondence charge sheet against the petitioner herein. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the accused/petitioner is directed to join the investigation forthwith and if the investigating officer take the accused person to custody on any particular day and complete the custodial interrogation by 6:00 p.m. on the same day and thereafter let the accused person on bail would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, following order is passed:

¶31

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions:

¶34

Petitioner/accused No.1 is directed to join the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 17.04.2021 at 10:00 a.m. (Shorapur P.S. in Crime No.253/2018) and Investigating Officer shall take the accused person to custody soon thereafter and complete the custodial interrogation, if any, by 6:00 p.m. on the same day and thereafter, enlarge the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail on he executing

¶35

a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer;

¶36

Petitioner/accused No.1 shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called

¶37

¶38

upon for the purpose of investigation and he shall co-operate with the police for investigation;

¶39

Petitioner/accused No.1 shall regularly appear

¶40

before the Trial Court on all the hearing dates without fail;

¶41

Petitioner/accused No.1 shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

sdu

Gopal S/O Yallappa Hujarathi v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal S/O Yallappa Hujarathi v. the State

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

Dawal Mallik and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Dr.Sangeetha.K Vs the State Government of Karnataka and Anr.

Kiran S/O Ashok Kale Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddanna Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Raghavendra S/O S/O Appaji Torvi Vs Riyaz Ahamed S/O Husainbasha Meti

Dhanraj S/O Kanteppa Chinkera Vs the State