Dismissed

Sri Kumaraswamy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2022CRL.A/1769/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the rejection of bail and extension of time to surrender. The appellant, charged with hijacking question papers and forgery, failed to appear before a medical board and had submitted a fake medical certificate. The court held there were no grounds to interfere and recommended contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection order and bail application were dismissed; appellant directed to surrender forthwith or face arrest.

Sri Kumaraswamy Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.A.No.1769/2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1769/2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI KUMARASWAMY (MENTIONED AS KUMARASWAMY @ KUMAR @ KIRAN IN CHARGESHEET) S/O SHIVARAMAIAH AGED 37 YEARS, R/O KAGGERE VILLAGE IRAKASANDRA POST, CHELUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 117 …APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V, ADV.)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALLESWARAM POLICE STATION NOW BY CID POLICE, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI.ASHOK N.NAIK, SPL. P.P.)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439, CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL. C.C. NO.417/2016 OF MALLESWARAM P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 411, 454, 457, 380, 381, 461, 166, 120B, 201 R/W SECTION 109 OF IPC, SECTIONS 115,

¶14

¶15

CRL.A.No.1769/2021

¶16

23(III) OF KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT AND SEC.3(1)(II), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) OF KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGAIZED CRIMES ACT ON THE FILE OF PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Aggrieved by the rejection of his petition for grant of bail on medical ground and for extension of time to surrender before the jail authorities, 1^st accused in Spl. C.C. No.417/2016, has preferred the above appeal.

¶20

Malleswaram Police filed charge sheet against

¶21

the appellant and 17 others for the offences punishable under Sections 411, 454, 457, 380, 381, 461, 166, 120B, 201 read with Section 109 of IPC and Sections 115 and 23 of the Karnataka Education Act, and also under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 3(1)(ii),

¶22

¶23

CRL.A.No.1769/2021

¶24

3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000. After taking cognizance, the matter is pending in Spl. C.C.No.417/2016 before the Principal City Civil and Sessions and Special Judge, Bengaluru.

¶25

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

¶26

That the accused in collusion with each other, indulged in hijacking question papers of II Year PreUniversity Board from safe custody of Government treasury, copying the same and again replacing the original question papers in the Treasury. It is alleged that then they were circulating such question papers to the candidates for monetary gain. It is alleged that accused were indulging in such acts since 2008 and ultimately in 2016, the scam was unearthed.

¶27

¶28

CRL.A.No.1769/2021

¶29

4. The allegation against the appellant is that

¶30

corrupting the 4^th accused, an official of Sub Treasury Office, Haveri, he trespassed into the strong room in the night, picked up Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics question papers, collected images of the same in his mobile phone digitally and then placed the original question papers back and came out of the office. It is further alleged that in collusion with other accused, he sold the said question papers to candidates and made wrongful gain.

¶31

5. Bail applications filed by the appellant were

¶32

rejected by this Court four times and once it was dismissed as withdrawn. The particulars of the said

¶33

bail applications are as follows:

¶34

Sl. No.	Crl.P. No.	Status
1.	5996/2016	Rejected on 22.02.2017
2.	3225/2017	Dismissed as withdrawn on 29.06.17
3.	5590/2018	Bail rejected on 19.02.2019
4.	3467/2019	Bail rejected on 09.09.2019

¶35

¶36

CRL.A.No.1769/2021

¶37

5.	3585/2020	Bail rejected	on
		11.09.2020

¶38

Such being the fact, appellant again filed bail petition before the Trial Court in Crl. Misc.2276/2021 on medical grounds. He contended that he is suffering from a chronic kidney disease and has to undergo surgery immediately. The trial Court vide order under Annexure-F dated 28.04.2021, granted him bail for three months to enable him to undergo such medical treatment. He was directed to surrender before the Trial Court soon after the expiry of three months, which expired on 31.07.2021. But he did not surrender.

¶39

Appellant filed another application before the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.6225/2021 seeking further extension of time to surrender. The Trial Court refused to grant said extension of time. Even thereafter, he did not surrender before the authorities

¶40

¶41

CRL.A.No.1769/2021

¶42

and sought indulgence of the Trial Court for further extension on same medical ground.

¶43

The Trial Court then referred the appellant to the Medical Board Victoria Hospital Campus, Bengaluru for medical examination. The said Medical Board gave report as per Annexure-J dated 05.10.2021 stating that the appellant is required to be referred to Institute of Nephro-Urology to obtain an opinion.

¶44

In the meantime, prosecution opposed the

¶45

appellant’s application for extension of time to surrender on the ground that the medical records produced by the appellant are fake.

¶46

The Trial Court then on hearing both side, by the impugned order at Annexure-C, dismissed the application for extension of time to surrender. Being aggrieved by that order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶47

¶48

CRL.A.No.1769/2021

¶49

It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the Medical Board stated that further examination of the appellant by NephroUrology Department at Victoria Hospital campus was required, the Trial Court without referring to the said observation, abruptly passed the impugned order. Therefore according to him, the order under challenge is unsustainable. It is contended that still the appellant is suffering from serious health issues and he needs medical attention.

¶50

To substantiate his contention of serious ailments, appellant has produced a certificate at Annexure-L dated 15.11.2021 said to have been issued by Brindhavvan Areion Hospital.

¶51

The respondent seriously contests the appeal on the ground that the appellant having involved in a serious crime, is dodging the matter. It is also

¶52

¶53

CRL.A.No.1769/2021

¶54

contended that the medical certificate at Annexure-L dated 15.11.2021 is a forged document. In support of such contention, the respondent has produced the certificate dated 6.12.2021 issued by Brindhavvan Areion Hospital to the effect that Annexure-L is not issued by the said hospital and the same is forged one.

¶55

In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court vide order dated 07.01.2022 referred the appellant to Nephro-Urology Department at Victoria Hospital campus, Bengaluru and directed him to appear before the medical authorities on 13.01.2022. The medical authority was directed to submit a report to this Court by 18.01.2022. Accordingly, the said authority has submitted a report on 17.01.2022.

¶56

The said report reads thus:

¶57

¶58

CRL.A.No.1769/2021

¶59

“After going through the investigation, it was found that there were discrepancies between physical examination and investigation. So it was communicated to the patient to appear before the Board today for further investigation. Further, he has expressed his inability to appear before the Board today citing health issues. Further investigations are required to be done on him to arrive at a proper conclusive report.”

¶60

The report shows that the appellant did not

¶61

appear before the authorities as required.

¶62

The appellant has submitted an affidavit

¶63

stating that he was asked to appear before the authorities with very short notice and therefore, he could not appear, etc. If the authorities had given him short notice, he could have submitted the same before this Court. Only after receipt of the report, he comes up with the affidavit.

¶64

¶65

CRL.A.No.1769/2021

¶66

As already noticed, earlier four petitions of the appellant have been rejected by this Court on the ground that he was involved in serious crimes. One of the petitions was dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, on merit, there is nothing to consider.

¶67

So far as medical ground, it is stated that appellant is suffering from chronic Kidney disease, etc., and required immediate surgery. Considering that, the learned Trial Judge vide order dated 28.04.2021, granted him three months time to undergo the treatment required, if any. If that was such emergent medical requirement, appellant could have undergone the surgery. But he went on seeking time.

¶68

Now from 28.04.2021, 8 months have elapsed. Appellant has not submitted any records for having undergone any surgery or medical procedure. So far as the medical certificate at Annexure-L

¶69

¶70

CRL.A.No.1769/2021

¶71

purportedly issued by Brindhavvan Areion Hospital, the said hospital itself by letter dated 06.12.2021 issued to the I.O. that Annexure-L labels that to be a fake document. If that is the case, the matter requires serious consideration as it amounts to interfering with the judicial process and contempt of Court.

¶72

Though appellant claims that his condition is very critical, for nine months he has survived. The report of Victoria Hospital shows that he did not appear before the Medical Board as required. Despite rejection of his prayer by the Trial Court, he did not surrender before the trial Court or jail authorities. As against that, on 07.01.2022, misleading that there was already an interim protection order got another interim protection order. Later, on examination of the records, it is found that there was no such interim protection order passed prior to 07.01.2022.

¶73

¶74

CRL.A.No.1769/2021

¶75

The above said facts go to show that the appellant is guilty of abuse of process of the Court and misconduct. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

¶76

Appellant shall surrender before the Trial Court forthwith failing which I.O. is at liberty to arrest him and produce before the trial Court.

¶77

If any serious condition of the appellant is reported by the jail authorities the trial Court can take a report from the competent Medical Board and reconsider the matter.

¶78

Registrar (Judicial) is requested to place the order before Hon’ble The Chief Justice for initiation of contempt proceedings against the appellant.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

vgh*

Sri Kumaraswamy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kumaraswamy 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

Jagadish Vs Girigowda. a. M.

Byrijayraj Vs State of Karnataka

Srinivasamurthy H v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Anil Satish Pinto Vs M/S Jbs Ready Consulting

Sadiq @ Kulda Sadiq Vs the State of Karnataka

Babu Khan @ Shabeer Vs State by Arasikere Railway Police