Allowed

Mrutyunjaya S/O Shadaksharayya Hiremath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Feb 2021CRL.RP/100040/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the order cancelling bail granted to four accused persons. The judgment held that mere registration of new complaints for minor offences (IPC Sections 504, 506) by the same complainant does not justify cancelling bail previously granted on merits, especially when the nature of offences is not heinous.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 4-2-2021 by the Sessions Judge cancelling bail to accused Nos.1 to 4 is set aside, and the earlier bail orders are restored.

Mrutyunjaya S/O Shadaksharayya Hiremath Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100039 OF 2021 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100040 OF 2021

¶6

IN CRL.R.P. NO.100039/2021:

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHIVAYOGI S/O. SHADAKSHARAYYA HIREMATH AGED 30 YEARS

¶9

OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶10

RUDRAYYA S/O. SHADAKSHARAYYA HIREMATH AGED 28 YEARS

¶11

OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶12

SHADAKSHARAYYA S/O. RUDRAYYA HIREMATH AGED 55 YEARS

¶13

OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶14

PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENT OF MULTHALLI, HANGAL TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT.

¶15

... PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS P.S.I., ADUR P.S. REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH.

¶20

.. RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY MS. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, H.C.G.P.)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 4-2-2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, IN CRL. MISC. NO.52 OF 2021.

¶23

IN CRL.R.P. NO.100040/2021:

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

MRUTYUNJAYA S/O. SHADAKSHARAYYA HIREMATH AGED 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE RESIDENT OF MULTHALLI HANGAL TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT.

¶26

... PETITIONER

¶27

(BY SRI VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS P.S.I., ADUR P.S. REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH.

¶30

.. RESPONDENT

¶31

(BY MS. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, H.C.G.P.)

¶32

¶33

¶34

THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

Criminal Revision Petition No.100039 of 2021 is filed by accused Nos.2 to 4 and Criminal Revision Petition No.100040 of 2021 is filed by accused No.1, being aggrieved by the order dated 4-2-2021 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.Crl.Misc. No.44 of 2020 and accused No.1 in C.Crl.Misc. No.12 of 2020 on the application filed by the complainant under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’).

¶37

Both the revision petitions are arising out of same Crime No.31 of 2020 and the facts and law involved in the cases are one and the same. Hence, they are taken up together and disposed of.

¶38

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well

¶40

the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondentState and perused the record.

¶41

The case of the prosecution is that, Adur Police registered a case against accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.31 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 354, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) on the complaint filed by one Irayya on 2-3-2020 alleging that, on 1-3-2020 at about 5:00 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 4 belonging to same family with common intention, came near the house of the complainant, at that time, complainant’s mother was peeling areca-nuts and on the background of ill-will, accused No.1 lifted and thrown the complainant’s mother on the cement road. Due to which, she sustained injuries on the right hip. By that time, when the complainant’s brother, Manjayya, came to the spot to rescue his mother, accused No.1 assaulted him with stone on his head and caused grievous injuries. Based upon the complaint, the Police

¶42

¶43

registered a case for the aforesaid offences. Subsequent to the death of the mother of the complainant, offence under Section 302 of the IPC has been inserted with the permission of the Court. Accused No.1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail. After considering the material on record, the Sessions Judge granted bail on 16-6-2020. Likewise, accused Nos.2 to 4 apprehending their arrest at the hands of respondent-Police approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, which came to be allowed with a direction to the Police to release them in the event of their arrest. In both the petitions, the trial Court directed the accused not to involve in any criminal activities. It is further case of the prosecution that again on 10-7-2020, the complainant file complaint against the accused in Crime No.88 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 506 and 509 read with Section 149 of the IPC and again, on 6-1-2021 one more complaint has been registered in Crime No.6 of 2021 for the similar offences. Taking note of the conditions mentioned in the bail order passed by the Sessions

¶44

¶45

Judge while granting bail to accused Nos.1 to 4, the State has filed petition under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail on the ground that they have violated the conditions of the bail. After considering the averments made by the learned Public Prosecutor, the bail granted by the Sessions Judge in C.Crl.Misc. No.44 of 2020 filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and in C.Cril.Misc. No.12 of 2020 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. have been cancelled. Assailing the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences. The complainant is registering back to back complaints in order to harass the petitioners. The petitioners have also filed counter complaint against the complainant and he is also on bail. After obtaining the bail, the complainant with intention to harass the petitioners is filing unnecessary complaints. He further contended that the petitioners are permanent resident of Haveri and they are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by

¶47

¶48

this Court. The trial Court, without considering the evidence on record, simply on the application filed by the prosecution has cancelled the bail. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petitions.

¶49

Learned High Court Government Pleader has supported the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge and contended that while granting bail, though the Sessions Court has categorically stated not to involve in any criminal activities, in spite of the that, the accused persons have involved in two more similar offences against the complainant. Therefore, the Sessions Judge has rightly cancelled the bail. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the petitions.

¶50

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, the only point that arises for my consideration in this revision petition is;

¶51

Whether the Sessions Judge committed error by canceling the bail on the ground that they are involved in similar offences ?

¶52

¶53

On considering the documents, it is not in dispute that the accused persons have charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 354, 504, 506 and 302 of the IPC in Crime No.31 of 2020. It is also not in dispute that accused No.1 was arrested and was remanded to judicial custody and subsequently, the Sessions Judge granted bail to him in C.Crl.Misc. No.12 of 2020 on 16-6-2020. Likewise accused Nos.2 to 4 have also been granted anticipatory bail in C.Crl.Misc. No.44 of 2020 on 16-6-2020, i.e. on the same day, both the orders are passed.

¶54

The Sessions Judge, while granting bail, directed the petitioners to maintain peace and tranquility in the locality and directed not to involve in any criminal activities. Now, the question arises in view of further two complaints have been filed by the same complainant against the accused which is registered in Crime No.88 of 2020 and 6 of 2021 for similar offences for abusing, assaulting and threatening. All these offences goes to show that it is verbal quarrel and no one is

¶55

¶56

injured and all the offences are simple in nature and not a heinous one. It appears that there is case and counter case filed against both the parties. Of course, if any of the bail conditions are violated, the trial Court is required to consider and it is also empowered to cancel the bail. The First Appellate Court relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of STATE OF BALEHONNUR POLICE v. MANJUNATHA reported in 2004 (2) KCCR 1333 , wherein it has held that ‘ Filing petition for cancellation of the bail after an year is not just, since there is no allegation that the liberty given to the accused has been misused .’, in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DHARMESH reported in 2017 (5) KCCR 311 , wherein it has held that ‘ Cancellation of the bail not to be passed in the absence of allegations as to violation of conditions of bail or involvement of accused in tampering the prosecution witnesses and also no chance of absconding by the accused .’ However, the First Appellate Court has observed that the said principles are not applicable to the facts on hand. This Court in the case of

¶57

B. BASAVARAJ v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE

¶58

¶59

INSPECTOR reported in 2017(3) KCCR 2643 , wherein it has held that ‘ Cancellation of the bail is not justified, since the petitioner has not appeared on two occasions before the Investigating Officer .’

¶60

Now, the Sessions Judge has cancelled the bail in view of registration of two more cases/complaints against the accused on the same allegations of the complainant. In my considered opinion, looking to the complaint filed by the complainant, it is all minor offences, i.e. under Section 504 and 506 of the IPC and there is no heinous offence committed by the accused. When the case and counter case is registered, they might have quarreled in respect of earlier complaint. Merely, further case is registered against the accused on the complaint filed by the same complainant, that itself is not a ground to cancel the bail granted by the Sessions Court. After considering the merits of the case and merely a condition said to be violated, the bail granted cannot be cancelled. Once the bail has been granted on merits by considering all the records, the Sessions Court cannot

¶61

¶62

ordinarily cancel the bail granted earlier, only on the ground that accused in involved in offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. Merely registering a case against the accused on the complaint of same complainant is not a ground for canceling the bail granted by the Sessions Court. Therefore, the order passed by the Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.

¶63

Accordingly, the order dated 4-2-2021 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, in Crl.Misc. No.52 of 2021 and Crl.Misc. No.53 of 2021 under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. canceling bail to accused Nos.1 to 4 are hereby set aside. The earlier orders passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, in C.Crl.Misc. No.44 of 2020 and C.Crl.Misc. No.12 of 2020 are hereby restored.

¶64

kvk

Mrutyunjaya S/O Shadaksharayya Hiremath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrutyunjaya S/O Shadaksharayya Hiremath 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

Vittal S/O. Annappa Madappagol, Vs the State of Karnataka

Channappa S/O. Veerpanna Divatar Vs the State of Karnataka

Balchandra S/O Shivaram Bhandari Vs the State of Karnataka

Vidhydhar Yoga Kurne Vs Kempanna Kallappa Yadgude

Muttanna S/O. Basanna Vs State of Karnataka

Shivayogi S/O Shadaksharayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka