Allowed

Raghu N v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2021CRL.A/960/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail. Finding no prima facie materials of the appellant's involvement given the background of the FIR and the issuing of a notice to the complainant's sister, the court set aside the lower court's order and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting anticipatory bail was set aside; the appellant was released on bail subject to conditions.

Raghu N Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 960 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Raghu N., S/o Nagaraju, Aged about 24 years, R/at No.12, H.S.K.Main Road, Near Vijaya Theater, Ganapathi Nagara, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru Government Electric Factory, Karnataka-560026 Presently R/at Supervisor, Chamarajanagar District Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited, Kuderu Village, Santhemaralli Hobli, Chamarajanagar District-571110.

¶9

…Appellant

¶10

(By Sri Veerabhadra Swamy H.P., Advocate)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Karnataka, By Yelandur Police Station, Yelandur Taluk, Chamarajanagar District, Represented By State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001.

¶13

¶14

Pramod S. S/o Somikempaiah, Aged 23 years, R/at Duggatty Village, Yelandur Taluk, Chamarajanagar District-571110.

¶15

…Respondents

¶16

(By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP for R1, Sri Rajashekhar K., Advocate for R2)

¶17

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the order dated 11.06.2021 and release the appellant on bail in Cr.No.65/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 504 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar and etc.,

¶18

This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission this day, the court delivered the following:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard the appellant’s counsel, the High Court

¶21

Government Pleader and the counsel for respondent

¶22

No.2.

¶23

This is an appeal under section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Appellant is accused

¶24

¶25

No.1 in FIR No. 65/2021 registered by the first respondent police for the offences punishable under section 504 of IPC and section 3(1)(s) of the Act. The

¶26

first informant is one Pramoda who is working as a Milk Collector in the Milk Producers Cooperative Society, Duggatti Village, Yellandur Taluk. His sister is the secretary of the said society. It is stated in the complaint made by Pramoda that the appellant asked him to bring the cash book for verification and demanded Rs.50,000/- from him and his sister not to take action against them. When the complainant said that he was not able to arrange the money, the appellant and another accused are said to have abused him taking the name of the caste. The FIR was registered on 5.5.2021.

¶27

The appellant’s counsel has produced a copy

¶28

of the notice issued to the complainant’s sister Pramila. This notice shows that the complainant’s

¶29

¶30

sister misappropriated the money being the secretary of the society. She used to collect 100 ml milk in excess from every farmer and in that way about 5,475 litres of excess milk had been collected and in that regard she had not remitted an amount of Rs.1,91,625/- to the society. She was also not conducting the monthly meetings and was not maintaining the accounts. For all these reasons, she was issued with a notice to give explanation. Therefore, if the allegations made in the FIR are seen in the background of this notice, a doubt arises with regard to veracity of the contents of the FIR. The actual reason appears to be something other than the imputation as to insulting the complainant and his sister in the name of the caste. The appellant is the supervisor of the Milk Cooperative Society, Chamarajanagar and therefore it may be stated that probably FIR might have been registered against the

¶31

¶32

appellant and another accused in the background of notice issued to the complainant’s sister. At this stage I do not find prima facie materials about the involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence. Accused No.2 has been enlarged on bail by the Special Court already. Therefore for all these reasons this appeal can be allowed. Hence, the following : -

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, dated 11.6.2021 on application under section 438 Cr.P.C is set aside, the said application is allowed.

¶35

(iii) In the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with Crime No.65/2021 registered at Yelandur Police Station, he shall be released on bail on his executing

¶36

¶37

a bond for Rs.50,000/- and providing one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The appellant is also subjected to the following conditions : -

¶38

(a) He shall not tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses.

¶39

(b) He shall regularly appear before the investigating officer whenever his presence is necessary for the purpose of investigation.

¶40

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

ckl

Raghu N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghu N 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

A R Chandrakanth Vs Sri G Baloo

Mr. D. Anthony Raj Vs the Station House Officer

Mr Jai Prakash Reddy M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Amjad Mohammad Shafi Vs State of Karnataka

Deepesh @ Deepu Vs State of Karnataka

Shivaraj Vs a. Rangaswamy