Allowed

Sri Yallappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2022CRL.P/430/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to petitioners facingcharges of affray, assault, and attempted murder. The court noted investigation completion, discharge of injured, and bail for co-accused as grounds, imposing conditions like bond, surrenderty to I.O., and no witness tampering to mitigate flight risk.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners enlarged on bail conditioned on furnishing bond with sureties, appearing before I.O. within 15 days, no similar offences, and no witness tampering.

Sri Yallappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.430/2022

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI. YALLAPPA S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT VADDRAPALYA KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN: 563 102

¶9

SRI. GURAPPA S/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 ARE R/O KONETI-THIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE SRINIVASAPURA TALUK-561 135. … PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI: SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SRINIVASAPURA POLICE STATION SRINIVASAPURA THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI: MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN C.C.NO.831/2021 (CR.NO.83/2021) OF SRINIVASAPURA P.S., KOLAR DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 READ WITH 149 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.1, 6 and 7 in Crime No.83 of 2021 of Srinivasapura Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC, are before this Court seeking to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

Brief facts of the case are that, the informant Sri.Muniyappa lodged the first information with Srinivasapura Police Station against accused Nos.1 to 12 stating that accused Nos.6 and 7 have constructed houses by encroaching upon the land of CW1. That on 15.05.2021, accused No.6

¶20

and his relatives were placing water pipes and the same was questioned by CW1, at that time, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like clubs picked up a quarrel with CWs.1, 2 and

¶21

¶22

others. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 assaulted CW2 with hands and accused No.1 assaulted CW2 with club on his head and caused grievous injuries. Accused No.4 assaulted CW3 with club, accused Nos.6 and 7 assaulted CW4 with club and thereby caused bleeding injuries.

¶23

Heard Sri.Shankarappa, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1, 6 and 7. They

¶25

are innocent and law abiding citizens. They have not committed any offences as alleged. They have been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. In fact, the petitioners are injured at the hands of the complainant as there was ill will between them with regard to landed property. Now the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. There are absolutely no material to invoke Section 307 of IPC. The injured have already been discharged from the hospital. The petitioners are not required for

¶26

¶27

custodial interrogation. Accused Nos.2, 8 to 12 have already been granted anticipatory bail and accused Nos.3 and 4 have been enlarged on bail. Under such circumstances, these petitioners are also entitled to be granted anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. The petitioners are the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the petition and they are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice.

¶28

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. Even though the incident had occurred on 15.05.2021, the petitioners are absconding till date and they have not co-operated with the Investigating Officer. Therefore, while filing the charge sheet, they are shown as absconding accused. Specific overt act is alleged against these petitioners that they have assaulted the injured with club. If the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they may never turn up before the Investigating Officer and they may abscond or may commit similar offences, threaten or

¶29

¶30

tamper the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶32

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶33

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

¶34

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶35

R E A S O N S

¶36

Even though serious allegations are made against

¶37

the petitioners with specific overt act alleged against them, it is not in dispute that CWs.2 and 3 who are injured are already been discharged from the hospital. The wound certificate relating to CWs.2 and 3 is produced for perusal of the Court. The same discloses that CW2 sustained grievous multiple injuries and there are 7 external injuries, whereas, CW3 has not sustained any grievous injuries. It is also not in dispute that CW2 who had sustained grievous injuries is already

¶38

¶39

discharged from the hospital. It is not the contention of prosecution that the petitioners are required for custodial interrogation. Admittedly, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. The co-accused against whom similar allegations are made, are already granted bail. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to reject the petition. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioners may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶40

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

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petition is allowed.

¶43

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.83 of 2021 of Srinivasapura Police Station.

¶44

The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of

¶45

¶46

this order and on their appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge them on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶47

a. The petitioners shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶48

b. The petitioners shall not commit similar offences;

¶49

c. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and

¶50

d. The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶51

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioners, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the addresses and authenticity of the documents furnished by them. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

*bgn/-

Sri Yallappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Yallappa 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

Ashraf Vs State by Moodabidre Police

Abhishek N @ Abhi @ Kalla Abhi Vs State of Karnataka

Balakrishna v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Selvaraj @ Budan @ Captain Vs State of Karnataka

Ramanna S/O Balayya Jalahalli Vs the State

Kishore S/O Kashappa Vs the State of Karnataka