Allowed

Jagadeesh S/O.Late Eswarappa, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2021CRL.P/364/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. granting relief to petitioners charged in an SC/ST Act case where the police had subsequently dropped major murder-related charges during investigation, citing changed circumstances and Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition allowed; respondents directed to release petitioners on bail subject to conditions: personal bond of ₹2,00,000, surrender within 15 days, no witness tampering, and no similar off

Jagadeesh S/O.Late Eswarappa, Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.364/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

JAGADEESH S/O. LATE ESWARAPPA,

¶8

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶9

VINAY KUMAR S/O. LATE ESWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶10

BOTH ARE AGRICULTURIST,

¶11

R/AT BHEEMASAMUDRA VILLAGE,

¶12

CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577520.

¶13

.. PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI NAGABHUSHANA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶17

BY CHITRADURGA RURAL POLICE STATION,

¶18

CHITRADURGA, PRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.

¶19

MANJANAIK S/O.LATE DASYANAIK, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶20

¶21

R/AT BHEEMASAMUDRA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 520.

¶22

.. RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT-1-STATE) (BY SRI B.J.SUNILKUMAR S.., SRI LAKSHMIKANT G., AND RAKSHITA R., ADVOCATES FOR R-2)

¶24

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. AND PRAYED TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE ABOVE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.145/2020 CHITRADURGA RURAL POLICE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(r) (w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) OF THE SC/ST PA ACT, 1989 AND SECTION 504, 324, 323, 506 AND 354(B) READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶25

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail in Special Case No.24/2020 (Crime No.145/2020 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station) for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) (w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the SC/ST PA Act, 1989) and Sections 504, 324, 323, 506 and 354(b) read with section 34 of IPC.

¶28

¶29

It is the case of prosecution that the Chitradurga Rural police filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences alleging that on 08.05.2020, when the complainant and others belongs to Lambani community were in the field the accused persons said to have abused them in filthy language by taking their caste and assaulted and they tried to dash the Pooryanaik through their Bolero vehicle and caused injuries, thereby accused were committed the said offences. Petitioners have approached the Sessions Court for granting anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected. Thereafter, they approached this Court for granting anticipatory bail in Criminal Petition No.3055/2020, which came to be dismissed on 06.08.2020. Now the charge sheet is filed by deleting the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST PA Act. Hence, they have filed this successive bail petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 has contended that the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged and they have been falsely implicated in this case on the background of civil dispute. Earlier there were six accused persons shown in the FIR, now the charge sheet came to be filed only

¶31

¶32

against the 2 accused persons. The major offences are dropped by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, there is no prima-facie case for rejecting the bail petition. Further he contended that in respect of civil case i.e., O.S.No.481/2011, the petitioner already moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, which is pending before the civil Court. The petitioners’ brother-in-law’s wife and son were made as party in the civil suit. But the petitioners are in actual possession of the land in question. The complainant said to have purchased the said land from the brother of accused persons. This dispute is between the parties are civil in nature and case is pending before the Court, not yet decided. There is delay of 8:00 hours in lodging the complaint, but delay was not explained. There is a contradiction in the statements of the witnesses, which shows the averments made in the FIR are not correct. Therefore, petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶33

Per Contra , the learned HCGP Sri R.D.Renukaradhya appeared through video conferencing and argued, merely filing of charge sheet is not a changed circumstance. Prima facie case is mode out, hence prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶34

¶35

Learned counsel for the complainant appeared through video conferencing subsequent to reserving the matter for orders. He has not filed any objection and not seriously objected the bail petition.

¶36

Having heard the arguments and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, alleged sale deed said to have executed by the brother of accused has been produced. Of course, this Court rejected the bail petition during the crime stage, where the major offences were alleged against the petitioners are Sections 324 and 307 of IPC that attempt to commit the murder of one of the witness-Pooryanaik. Major offence is shown Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST PA Act, which is punishable with imprisonment for life with fine. But now the police after due investigation, dropped the charges under Sections 324 and 307 of IPC as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST PA Act. Apart from the complaint was lodged against six persons, now charge sheet is filed only against 2 accused persons. Further in the statements of witnesses, they have changed their version and police dropped the major offences. Except sections 354(B) and 504 of IPC, the major offences were dropped by the Investigating Officer while filing of charge sheet. Now the

¶37

¶38

investigation is already completed, charge sheet has been filed. In view of the changed circumstances, the witnesses have given statements for forgoing the earlier statements made before the police and dropping of major offences and dropping of 4 accused persons in the charge sheet. The pendency of civil matter between the parties, possession of the land by the accused at the time of incident and the counter case has been lodged by the relative of the accused, but not the accused. The accused have no knowledge about the case of the complainant. Considering of these aspects and the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 1036 , wherein it is held, even the Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear and no argument to the contrary has been raised.

¶39

In the Criminal Appeal No.1165/2019 (@ SLP (Crl)

¶40

2712/2019 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the FIR, which was registered under the offence punishable under the SC/ST

¶41

¶42

PA Act. In view of the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as fact and circumstances of the case, deleting the major offences of Sections 324 and 307 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST PA Act and dropping of 4 accused persons from the charge sheet and pending civil dispute, I am of the view that the petitioners are made out fresh grounds for granting anticipatory bail. The question of tampering of witnesses does not arise as the charge sheet is already filed. Petitioners are permanent residents of the said addresses. By imposing stringent conditions, if petition is allowed, by granting anticipatory bail, no prejudice would cause to the case of prosecution. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The Criminal Petition is allowed . The respondent-police is directed to release the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.145/2020 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) (w)(i)(ii) of the SC/ST PA Act, and Sections 504, 324, 323, 506 and 354(b) read with section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶45

¶46

i. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `2,00,000/- (Rupees two Lakhs only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/trial Court.

¶47

ii. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

iii. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not hamper/tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶49

iv. They shall not indulge in similar offences.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

ckk

Jagadeesh S/O.Late Eswarappa, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagadeesh S/O.Late Eswarappa, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramanagoudar S/O. Sanaganagouda Patil Vs Basanagouda S/O. Mallikarnunagouda Patil

Arjun Gundu Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Rajeev B Kalenatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh Alias Bellatur Ramesh Vs State by Avalahalli Ps

Shri. Suresh S/O. Tippanna Gudli Vs the State of Karnataka

Dinesh Alias Balu S/O Tukarm Mirashi Vs the State of Karnataka