Allowed

Muttappa S/O Parameshappa Amate v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2022CRL.P/101936/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed two criminal petitions for regular and anticipatory bail for three accused persons involved in a fatal tractor accident. The court granted bail under conditions including personal bonds, surrender timelines, and non-tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed. Petitioners granted bail on security of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with surety, subject to conditions including surrender within fifteen days and non-tampering of witnesses.

Muttappa S/O Parameshappa Amate Vs State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF JULY 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101928/2022 c/w CRIMINAL PETITION No.101936/2022

¶6

IN CRL.P.101928/2022 BETWEEN:

¶7

CHANNABASAPPA S/O PARAMESHAPPA AMATE AGE.32 YEARS, OCC.COOLIE, R/O.SUTTAKOTI VILLAGE, TQ.HIREKERUR, DIST.HAVERI-581111

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARANATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD THROUGH HIREKERUR POLICE STATION-580011

¶12

2 . RAMCHANDRA S/O KHANDEPPA MANJREKAR AGE.47 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE, R/O.CHOWDESHWARI NAGAR, HIREKERUR , DIST.HAVERI-581111

¶13

.. RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1. SRI. SUBHENDU AKALAWADI, ADV. FOR SRI HARSHAWARDHANA M. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2.)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN CC NO.83/2020, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 279, 338, 304A, 201, 420, 415, R/W 149 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HIREKERUR.

¶17

IN CRLP. 101936/2022 BETWEEN

¶18

1 . MUTTAPPA S/O PARAMESHAPPA AMATE AGE.32 YEARS, OC.COOLIE, R/O.SUTTAKOTE VILLAGE, TQ.HIREKERUR, DIST.HAVERI

¶19

2 . PARAMESHAPPA AMATE AGE.60 YEARS, OC.COOLIE, R/O.SUTTAKOTE VILLAGE, TQ.HIREKERUR, DIST.HAVERI

¶20

...PETITIONERS

¶21

(By Sri.M B GUNDAWADE, ADV.)

¶22

AND

¶23

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARANATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD THROUGH HIREKERUR POLICE STATION

¶24

2 . RAMCHANDRA S/O KHANDEPPA MANJREKAR AGE.47 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE, R/O.CHOWDESHWARI NAGAR TQ.HIREKERUR, DIST.HAVERI 581 111

¶25

..RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1. SRI. SUBHENDU AKALAWADI, ADV. FOR SRI HARSHAWARDHANA M. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2.)

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 IN BAIL IN CC NO.83/2020, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 279, 338, 304A, 201,

¶28

¶29

420, 415 R/W 149 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HIREKERUR.

¶30

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

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

Criminal Petition No.101928/2022 is filed by accused No.1 and Criminal Petition No.101936/2022 is filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 439 and 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for brevity) for granting regular bail and anticipatory bail, respectively, in C.C. No.83/2020 and pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hirekerur for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A, 201 and 420 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for brevity).

¶33

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and Sri. Shubhendu Akalawadi counsel for respondent No.2.

¶34

¶35

The case of the complainant is that, accused No.1 is

¶36

stated to be the driver of the tractor trailer. Accused No.3 is stated to be the owner and accused No.2 is stated to be another son of accused No.3. That on 19.02.2017, the complainant asked the driver to bring his wife and child in the tractor. Subsequently, accused No.1 stated to have informed that, while getting down, due to imbalance, his wife fell down and sustained injuries and his son also fell down and sustained injuries. After intimation, the victims were taken to the hospital. His wife succumbed to the injuries. Subsequently, UDR No.8/2017 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C was registered and the police said to have closed the matter. Therefore, the complainant-respondent No.2 filed a private complaint before the trial court and the complaint was got referred to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and in turn the police after investigation filed ‘B’ final report. Subsequently, the same was challenged by the complainant and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate for the aforesaid offence. After registration of the case, the police arrested accused No.1 on 18.04.2022. His bail petition came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and accused Nos.2 and 3 apprehending their arrest have also

¶37

¶38

approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail which came to be rejected. Hence, they are before this Court.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the alleged offence are bailable offence except Section 420 of IPC which is implicated by the complainant in the private complaint. The police also filed ‘B’ final report and the same was challenged and cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. The petitioners are ready to abide any conditions. The offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

¶40

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the petitions and prayed for dismissal of the petitions.

¶41

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 seriously objected the petition and contended that accused No.1 committed accident and in spite of the same, in order to suppress the accident, accused No.1 and accused No.2 and 3 obtained signature of the complainant on the blank paper and created as if it is a accidental fall but not due to rash and negligence act which attracts Sections 304A, 338 and 279 of IPC. Therefore, the complainant filed a private

¶42

¶43

complaint before the Court and got it referred. Even the police filed ‘B’ final report which was challenged, then the trial Court took cognizance. Therefore, if the accused are granted bail, they may likely to abscond and tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence, prayed for rejecting the petitions.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,

¶45

perused the records.

¶46

On perusal of the same, especially a private complaint

¶47

was filed by the complainant before the Magistrate and got it referred to the police alleging that even though accused No.1 being drive of the tractor trailer caused the accident due to which is wife died and son was seriously injured and they also obtained signature of the complainant on the blank paper and got registered a case in UDR with the help of the police and even after filing the private complaint, the police filed ‘B’ final report. Subsequently, same was challenged by the complainant and finally, the trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Sections 279, 338, 304A, 201 and 420 of IPC. Except Section 420 of IPC, other offences are bailable in nature.

¶48

¶49

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶50

the petitioner/accused No.1 is already is custody and he is not required except for trial and accused Nos.2 and 3/petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are apprehending their arrest, therefore, if bail is granted, no prejudice would be caused to the complainant’s case. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶51

Accordingly, both the criminal petitions are allowed. The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail and shall also release the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 on bail in the event of their surrender before the Court in CC No.83/2020 subject to the following conditions:

¶52

i. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶53

ii. The petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall surrender before the trial Court within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶54

iii. The petitioners shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶55

¶56

iv. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offence.

¶57

v. The petitioners shall take the trial without causing any delay.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

kmv

Muttappa S/O Parameshappa Amate v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muttappa S/O Parameshappa Amate 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

Govindegouda C.K Vs the State of Karnataka

Bashasab S/O Mabusab Mudagal Vs the State of Karnataka

Girimal S/O. Shankar Pawar Vs the State of Karnataka

Channabasappa S/O Parameshappa Amate Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Allauddin S/O Hajaresab Nadaf Vs the State of Karnataka

Basagouda Iragouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka