Allowed

M K Ningappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2022CRL.A/1943/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against an order rejecting an anticipatory bail application. The Court granted bail due to identity confusion between the appellant and the accused named in the FIR and a significant unexplained delay in FIR registration, finding the apprehension of arrest well-founded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; anticipatory bail allowed subject to bond of Rs.50,000/- and conditions to cooperate with investigation and not tamper with evidence.

M K Ningappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1943 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M.K.Ningappa, S/o. Late Karigowda, Aged about 47 years, R/at 6^th “A” Cross, Rajakempegowda Badavane, Channapatna Town, Ramanagar District-562159.

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri K.A.Chandrashekara, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka By the Police of Akkuru Police Station, Ramanagar District-562159.

¶12

Represented by SPP High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru - 560001.

¶13

Shiva V.K., S/o Late Karigundaiah, Aged about 44 years,

¶14

R/at Virupakshipura Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagar District-562159.

¶15

…Respondents

¶16

(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1; R2 – Served. Unrepresented)

¶17

:: 2 ::

¶18

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act praying to set aside the order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the Learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in Crl.Misc.No.962/2022 and grant him anticipatory bail in Cr.No.221/2022 of Akkuru Police Station, Channapattana Taluk, Ramanagara District now pending on the file of the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara for the offence p/u/s 427, 447, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶19

This Criminal Appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Heard Sri K.A.Chandrashekara, learned

¶22

counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1State. Respondent No.2 has not appeared before this court inspite of service of notice on him.

¶23

This is an appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [‘SC/ST Act’ for short], challenging the correctness of the order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in

¶24

:: 3 ::

¶25

Crl.Misc.No.962/2022, rejecting the appellant’s application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.221/2022 registered by the first respondentpolice for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act.

¶26

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the court below appears to have declined anticipatory bail to the appellant because of some confusion with regard to identity of accused No.2. In the FIR, the name is written as Lawyer Lingappa of Chikkalurudoddi village, Kasaba Hobli, Channapatna Taluk. But the appellant’s name is M.K.Ningappa, who is a practising advocate at Channapatna.

¶27

In regard to incident dated 21.09.2022, the second respondent approached the police on 03.10.2022. The allegations found in FIR are that

¶28

:: 4 ::

¶29

the second respondent came to know at about 10.00 am on 21.09.2022 that two teak trees grown by him in his land were being cut. He went to that

¶30

place and saw the trees being cut. When he questioned one Mahalinga, i.e., accused No.1 as to why he was cutting the trees, he showed one Lingappa and said that Lingappa was constructing a house and he wanted the trees. When second respondent told that the trees belonged to him, it is alleged that Lingappa took the name of the caste of second respondent and abused him in vulgar language by referring to his caste name and threatened him of dire consequence. Therefore as

¶31

has been observed by the court below, the person present at the place of incident was one Lingappa and not Ningappa.

¶32

The argument of Sri K.A.Chandrashekara

¶33

is that, there is only one person namely Ningappa who is practising as a Lawyer at Channapatna and

¶34

:: 5 ::

¶35

for this reason he has a threat of being arrested. He also submits that all IPC offences mentioned in the FIR are bailable and the allegation with regard to caste cannot be believed, because of delay in registration of FIR.

¶36

Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that investigation is still pending and the police have to ascertain whether the appellant was the person who was present at the place of incident or not. In FIR, the name forthcoming is Lingappa, who is also called Lawyer Lingappa.

¶37

The appellant’s name is M.K.Ningappa and he is a practising advocate. As per the submission made by Sri K.A.Chandrashekara, the appellant is not constructing a house. If this statement is taken into consideration, an inference

¶38

may be drawn that the appellant was not the person present at the place of incident. However the appellant’s apprehension of being arrested

¶39

:: 6 ::

¶40

appears to be well founded because, it is

¶41

submitted that there is no advocate by name Lingappa who is practicing at Channapatna. Therefore the name as referred to in FIR according to him refers to appellant and therefore he has apprehension of being arrested.

¶42

Anticipatory bail can be granted in favour

¶43

of a person who has a threat of arrest in connection with non bailable offence. In view of some confusion in the name, if the appellant has a fear of being arrested, it can be taken into consideration. As has been argued by the appellant’s counsel, the offences punishable under Section 427, 447, 504 and 506 of IPC are bailable

¶44

and only non-bailable offence is under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act.

¶45

If the appellant was the person who was present at the spot while cutting the trees, delay

¶46

:: 7 ::

¶47

in registration of FIR certainly matters. It is not understandable as to why the second respondent waited till 03.10.2022 to approach the police even though the incident is said to have taken place on 21.09.2022. There is no explanation. In this view, I find that the appellant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. The court below could have granted anticipatory bail in these set of circumstances. Sometimes, delay in registration of FIR may be considered to find out whether prima-facie case exists or not. Therefore appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

Appeal is allowed.

¶50

The order dated 07.11.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.962/2022 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, is set aside.

¶51

Application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is allowed.

¶52

:: 8 ::

¶53

In the event of arrest of the appellant by the first respondent police in connection with Crime No.221/2022, he shall be released on bail subject to his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) and providing one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The appellant is also subjected to following conditions:-

¶54

(i) He shall co-operate with the investigating officer for completing the investigation.

¶55

(ii) He shall attend the police station whenever his presence is necessary for the purpose of investigation.

¶56

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

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Kmv/-

M K Ningappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M K Ningappa 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

Sri. Rahamathulla Khan Vs Smt. Umme Salma

Mrs Ummesalma Vs Mr Rahamathulla Khan

Vinodachar Vs State of Karnataka

Arun Kumar Alva S/O Late Santha Alva Vs State by Cbi, Acb Bengaluru

Edward Anil Dsouza Vs State by Hennur Police Station

Saddam Hussain @ Saddam Vs State of Karnataka