Dismissed

K S Devaraju v. State by Handanakere Police

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2022CRL.P/3629/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail for accused No.2. The court held that since the petitioner failed to surrender after a previous petition was dismissed and a specific overt act was alleged, he was not entitled to bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petition filed for anticipatory bail is dismissed, and the petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail.

K S Devaraju Vs State by Handanakere Police — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3629/2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.S.Devaraju, Aged about 43 years, S/o K.C.Shivalingaiah Kamalapura, Handanakere Hobli Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumakuru District-572217.

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri.Vinaya Keerthy.M., Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

State by Handanakere Police Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk Tumakuru District Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bengaluru-560001.

¶13

… Respondent

¶14

(By Sri.Vinayak V.S., HCGP)

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to grant anticipatory bail for the alleged offences under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504 R/w 34 IPC registered by the first Respondent Handanakere Police, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk in Cr. 27/2021 on the file of the learned V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tiptur.

¶16

¶17

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders through video conference in Kalaburagi Bench this day, the Court passed the following:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.27/2021 of Handanakere Police Station, Tumkur District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, and 307 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant-Smt.Kariyamma.

¶20

Heard Sri Vinaya Keerthy M., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinayak V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Initially FIR was registered

¶22

¶23

under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, on the basis of the first information lodged by the mother of the injured. Subsequently, Section 307 of IPC is invoked without any basis. No motive is alleged against the present petitioner. On the other hand, the motive is alleged against accused No.1. The petitioner is neither having any enmity nor he is having any criminal antecedents. The injured is already discharged from the hospital. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court for similar reliefs in Criminal Petition No.4673/2021 which came to be dismissed on 06.08.2021. However, now the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, allowed similar petition filed by accused No.3 and granted conditional order of interim bail. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for similar relief. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶25

¶26

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that injured was discharged from the hospital after prolonged treatment. He further submitted that even though accused No.3 is granted anticipatory bail, it is specifically observed in the said order that no specific overt-act is alleged against accused No.3. But the informant specifically named the present petitioner and specific overt-act is also alleged against him. Under such circumstances, the petitioner should have surrendered before the Investigating Officer when his first petition came to be dismissed by this Court. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶27

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶28

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶29

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the

following:

R E A S O N S

Admittedly the petitioner is named by the informant and also stated about the overt-act committed by him. Considering the material on record and the allegations made against the present petitioner, similar petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in Criminal Petition No.4673/2021 was came to be dismissed, vide order dated 06.08.2021. In spite of that, the petitioner has not appeared before the Investigating Officer. I do find force in the contention raised by the learned High Court Government Pleader that investigation could not be completed and chargesheet also could not be filed as petitioner is still absconding.

¶34

Even though, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that accused No.3 is granted anticipatory bail and therefore, petitioner is also entitled for benefit of parity. The order dated 02.12.2021 passed in Criminal Petition No.9036/2021 by the co-ordinate bench of this Court, discloses that the Court has appreciated that there

¶35

¶36

is no overt-act specifically alleged against accused No.3 and therefore, bail was granted. But, in the present case, petitioner is accused No.2 who was named by the informant in the first information and also stated about the overt-act committed by him. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek benefit of parity. Moreover, when petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is already dismissed when there being no changed circumstances, the petitioner could not have approached this Court with similar prayer again. Hence, I am of the opinion that petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶37

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

VNR

K S Devaraju v. State by Handanakere Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K S Devaraju v. State by Handanakere Police

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

Rafiq S/O Hajaratsab Hundekar Vs the State of Karnataka

V Surya Chandra Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahadev @ Mutrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghu Vs the Manager of P and a and Anr.

Poornima and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Fazal Ahmed S/O Syed Naseeruddin Vs the State through Santpur P.S.