Partly allowed

Sri. Ramaiah Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2021CRL.P/219/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to petitioner-accused No.3 (aged 73) on medical grounds for a limited period of six months due to severe ailments, while rejecting the bail plea of petitioner-accused No.4 despite similar submissions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioner No.1/accused No.3 for six months on production of bond and two sureties, with directions to surrender after the period or in case of worsening health; plea of petitioner No.

Sri. Ramaiah Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.219 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI.RAMAIAH REDDY

¶9

S/O REDDEPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O NO.005, GOLDEN RAYS APARTMENT, NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE, DEVARA CHIKKANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶10

SRI.SATHISH S/O RAMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/O NO.005, GOLDEN RAYS APARTMENT, NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE, DEVARA CHIKKANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI.VEERANNA G.TIDAGI, ADVOCATE (PH))

¶13

AND :

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BEGUR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU.

¶15

¶16

REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU.

¶17

… RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI.H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP (PH))

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.117/2019 REGISTERED BY BEGUR STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 447, 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 341, 307 AND 504 R/W 149 OF IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.117/2019 of Beguru Police Station, on the basis of

¶23

the first information lodged by the informant for the offences, punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 R/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')

¶24

Heard Sri.Veeranna G.Tigadi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri.H.R.Showri, learned HCGP for the respondent -State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4. It is the

¶26

3 -

¶27

successive bail petition. Earlier, these petitioners have filed Crl.P.No.458/2020 and it came to be dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2020. Accused No.3 who is petitioner No.1 herein, is aged about more than 73 years and suffering from age related and other chronic diseases. In that regard, medical report from Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru is also called for by this Court and the same is placed before this Court. Considering the health condition and advanced age of petitioner-accused No.3, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶28

Learned counsel further submits that accused Nos.3 and 4 are in judicial custody since from their apprehension and accused No.5 who is similarly placed is already enlarged on bail. Considering all these facts and circumstances, both the petitioners may be enlarged on bail in the interest of justice. The petitioners are the permanent residents of the address as mentioned in the cause title to the petition and they are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶29

¶30

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. He submits that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already considered the request made by the petitioners for grant of bail and rejected the earlier petition in Crl.P.No.458/2020. There is no changed circumstance to consider the similar reason once again by this Court. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

He further submits that even if accused No.3 is suffering from age related or other chronic diseases, Jail Superintendent may be directed to provide him necessary treatment. He has drawn my attention to the order passed by the trial Court while rejecting similar petition filed by the petitioner and contended that the medical records of accused No.3 were considered by the trial Court. But, however accused No.3 is not entitled for bail on medical grounds. Now again similar request is made to enlarge accused No.3 on bail. Under such circumstances, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

¶33

Alternatively, he submitted that even if the Court comes to the conclusion that accused No.3 is entitled to be enlarged on bail on medical grounds, he may be released on bail for a limited period with a condition to surrender before Investigating Officer on a specified date. Looking into the seriousness of the offence, accused No.3 is not entitled for a blanket order of bail. Accordingly, he prays for passing appropriate order.

¶34

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned

¶35

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

¶36

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for

¶37

grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶38

My answer to the above point is in the ‘Partly

¶39

Affirmative’ for the following:

¶40

R E A S O N S

¶41

Admittedly, similar petition filed by the present petitioners in Crl.P.No.458/2020 was considered by this Court on merits and the same was dismissed vide order dated

¶42

¶43

18.02.2020. I do not find any reason to once again consider the bail petition filed by these petitioners on similar grounds in the absence of any subsequent events.

¶44

However, it is stated that accused No.3 is now aged 73 years and is suffering from aged related and other chronic diseases. In this regard, medical report was called for from the Chief Superintendent of Central Prison, Bengaluru. The Chief Superintendent has filed his report along with medical records pertaining to accused No.3. The report of the Chief Superintendent reads as under:

¶45

“During his stay in the prison hospital, he has developed several episodes of breathing difficulty, (URTI and LRTI) worsening and exacerbation of his bronchial asthma for which he has treated with IV Fluids, IV Antibiotics and IV Bronchodilators, nebulization, Inhalation, medicines and oxygen by mast due to drop in oxygen saturation. His blood pressure showed fluctuations and variations ranging from 200/130mllg to 170/100mllg. His BP medicines were escalated both in the number and type of tablets and the dosage which suited his lung conditions. He also suffered from two episodes of urinary tract infection (UTI) for which he was treated with anti-biotics at Central Prison Hospital.

¶46

During 07-11-2020 it was noticed that his foold intake was drastically reduced and he complained of reduced appetite, extreme weakness and fatigue and was unable to attend to his minimum daily routine activities. His general

¶47

¶48

condition started worsening and deteriorating and when evaluated clinically gross pallor was evident which was confirmed by laboratory investigations which showed hemoglobin percentage of 3.8gm%, thus he was suffering from sever anaemia. At the same time his blood pressure was also very high 180/120mmhg despite regular treatment. He was immediately referred to Jayanagar General Hospital on emergency in view of severe anaemia, exacerbated bronchial asthama with laboured breathing, fail in SpO2 saturation and semiconscious stated on 07-11-2020. he was admitted in Jayanager General Hospital on the same day i.e. Date of Admission 07-11-2020, 4:59 pm date of discharge 15-11-2020 with UHID No.2020086315 Admission ID 20209508 MRD No.75396 under General medicine Unit II. After detailed evaluation, he was diagnosed to be suffering from severe anaemia, Vitamin B12 deficiency, Bronchial asthama, COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) He was treated with three units of blood transfusion along with other necessary medications. He was discharge on 15-11-2020. Following discharge from Jayanagar General Hospital he was again admitted in Central Prison Hospital Room 17 for continuous and constand observation and treatment and follow-up. He was treated with IV, Injectable iron prepations, Injection Vitamin B12 very frequently and regularly as per the prescription and advice of the consultant doctors of Jayanagar General Hospital.

¶49

He continuous to be under the care of doctors in Central Prison Hospital, Room No.6. He is suffering from repeated and frequent asthmatic attacks especially worsening at the early morning and evenings during witner. Even at rest he has laboured and effort breathing, dyspnoea at rest, excessive fatigue, low oxygen saturation on room air thus requiring nebulization, oxygen inhalation and supportive medications. There is also extreme fluctuation in his blood pressure values

¶50

¶51

which is necessitation frequent and regular monitoring while adjusting the anti-hypertensive medications. His ECG also shows changes of left ventricular hypertrophy which means further cardiology evaluation. His current blood investigation also shows persistent urinary tract infection which needs further nephrology and urology work up.

¶52

Over all, in view of his old age i.e., 73 years along with thin built and week stature and poor general condition with essential hypertension (fluctuating towards high levels), bronchial asthma with frequent exacerbations and severe attacks, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Low SpO2 in room air, Persistent/recurrent Urinary Tract Infection, Severe Anaemia under continuous treatment, requiring further cardiology and nephrology and urology consultation and evaluation are all chronic and additive comorbidities and rist factors and hence over all he is in a highly vulnerable state unable to attend to his daily routine activities.”

¶53

On perusal of the report submitted by the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru, I find, it proper to enlarge accused No.3 on bail for a limited period. Even if he were to be kept in the Prison by providing required medical assistance, in view of his advanced age of 73 years and illhealth, it may take longer time in recovering from his ailments. Therefore, I am of the opinion that petitioner No.1/accused No.3 may be enlarged on bail for a limited period to enable him to get necessary medical treatment in

¶54

¶55

the hospital of his choice. However, looking into the seriousness of the offence and overt-act of the petitioner No.1/accused No.3 along with others, he is not entitled to a blanket order of bail. Accused No.4 is not entitled for grant of bail. Since, similar prayer in this regard is already rejected by this Court.

¶56

9. Accordingly, I answer the above point in partly

¶57

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

The petition is partly allowed.

¶60

The petition filed by the petitioner No.2/accused no.4 is rejected.

¶61

The petition filed by petitioner No.1/accused No.3 is allowed subject to conditions, for a period of six months.

¶62

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.117/2019 of Begur Police Station on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶63

10 -

¶64

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶65

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

¶66

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

¶67

Petitioner No.1/accused No.3 shall produce medical

¶68

records in respect of the treatment that is availed by him, before the trial Court. On completion of the period of six months he shall surrender before the trial Court. In case, health condition of accused No.3 is worsened or further deteriorated, he is at liberty to move the Court for extension of period fixed above.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

gpg

Sri. Ramaiah Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ramaiah Reddy 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

Sri Abhishek N Vs State of Karnataka

Vignesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesha Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr.Ganesh @ Gani Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Devaki Vs State by Halasuru Gate Police

Muniraju B Vs State of Karnataka