Allowed

Santosh K R S/O Karabasappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 May 2023CRL.P/100416/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail for two HESCOM linemen accused in a case where a death occurred due to an electric shock. The court allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

The bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioners shall be released on bail, subject to specific bond and conduct conditions.

Santosh K R S/O Karabasappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No.100416 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100416 OF 2023 (438-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SANTOSH K R, S/O KARABASAPPA AGE 29 YEARS OCC HESCOM EMPLOYEE R/O WADEYARANAHALLI, TQ RANEBENNUR DIST HAVERI

¶10

KARABASAPPA

¶11

S/O SANJEEVAPPA KARIYANNAVAR AGE 46 YEARS, OCC HESCOM EMPLOYEE R/O MALANAYAKANAHALLI TQ RANEBENNUR, DIST HAVERI

¶12

…PETITIONERSS

¶13

(BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HALAGERI POLICE STATION HALAGERI AND ALSO REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING DHARWAD BENCH

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONERSS/ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 2 IN CRIME NO. 85/2022 OF HALAGERI POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 304 OF IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

CRL.P No.100416 of 2023

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard on bail application.

¶25

On the basis of the complaint filed by one Renuka, Wife of Channabasappa Hiremarad, the Halageri Police Station has registered a case against accused Nos.1 and 2, the petitioners herein, and two others in Crime No.85/2022 for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶26

The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 13.05.2022, husband of the complainant namely Channabasappa Hiremathad went for ploughing his own land situated at Krishnapura Haddi, on Itagi-Mudenur Road. Further, it is alleged that beside the land of complainant Bankar’s land is situated, hence, the owner of the adjoining land of complainant taken connection to the borewell of his land from the electric pole on the side of the road. Further it is alleged that about 7 to 8 months back, the KEB employees removed the line which passes

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No.100416 of 2023

¶29

on the border of land of complainant and the adjoining land of Bankar have negligently left there itself. Even though the complainant and her family members told the petitioners No.1 & 2 something will happen due to rain and wind and to remove the wire, but, they have not taken any action by saying as “dA¥ï vÉUÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ K£ÀÆ DUÀ®è CAvÁ GqÁ¥sÉ GvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.”

¶30

It is further alleged that on 13.05.2022, in the afternoon one Dilleppa, S/o Siddappa Banakar, R/o Mushtoor Village, who is the relative of complainant had informed that her husband Channabasappa died due to electric shock. Thereafter, she along with others had been to the spot and saw her husband died on the spot due to electric shock, as well as their bullock also fallen on the spot due to its leg was broken. Further, they enquired with others about this incident occurred, they told them that at about 1.00 p.m., the deceased Channabasappa was ploughing from his land to the adjoining Banakar’s land, thereafter at about 1-30 p.m. the electric wire touched

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No.100416 of 2023

¶33

with Channabsappa and bullock, immediately, the deceased shouted and also their bullock kicked aside, Channabasappa died on the spot only.

¶34

It is further alleged that on inspecting the spot, they came to know that the petitioners No.1 & 2 i.e., KEB employees have only disconnected the electricity to the wires which passes on the borders of the land of complainant as well as his adjoining land, but, negligently, they left the wires in their lands, suddenly, the current jumped from the electric pole to the wires left in their land, hence, the current passes into the wires and caused the incident. Therefore, the Section officer, AEE, Electric Inspector and Linemen of HESCOM are responsible for cause of the aforesaid incident and committed the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC as alleged by the prosecution.

¶35

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶36

petitioners has submitted his arguments stating that petitioners are the Linemen working in Hubli Electricity

¶37

5 - CRL.P No.100416 of 2023

¶38

Supply Company (HESCOM) and there is no motive and intention on the part of the petitioners to commit the alleged offence. There is no overt act alleged against the petitioners with regard to the commission of the alleged offence. The complaint filed by the complainant does not disclose any prima facie material against these petitioners regarding their involvement in the alleged incident. The petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On all these grounds, learned counsel sought for allowing the application.

¶39

The commission of the alleged offences are not

¶40

punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Petitioners are working as Linemen in HESCOM and there is no possibility of absconding. The incident took place on 13.05.2022. Even after a lapse of one year, the Investigating Officer, has not arrested petitioner Nos.1 and 2 for the reasons best known to him. The Investigating Officer, has not even issued the notice to the petitioners No.1 and 2, under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal

¶41

6 - CRL.P No.100416 of 2023

¶42

Procedure, 1973, for their interrogation. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is an apprehension as to the arrest of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Considering the nature and gravity of offence, and the occupation of the petitioners, it is just and proper to allow the application and enlarge the petitioners herein on bail on certain condition. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioners shall be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in connection with Crime No.85/2022, registered by the Halageri Police Station, subject to conditions that,

¶45

(a) the petitioners shall execute a self-bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶46

(b) the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the

¶47

¶48

CRL.P No.100416 of 2023

¶49

Police/Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶50

(c) the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶51

(d) the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned police station/court without previous permission of the Court; and

¶52

(e) the petitioners shall not commit any offence/s of which they are accused of.

¶53

(Sd/-) JUDGE

¶54

KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Santosh K R S/O Karabasappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh K R S/O Karabasappa 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

Vishwanath S/O Eranna Alias Veeranna Kabber Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Veereshayya S/O Eshwarayya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kempanna Mallappa Basargi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Laxmi W/O Uday Alias Udaykumar Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Jafar Sadiq S/O. Raja Sab Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Manjunath S/O Venkatraman Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka