Allowed

Sri. Kariyanaika v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Apr 2023CRL.P/1179/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner firms facing FIRs for offences under Sections 384 and 149 IPC regarding imposition of fines for inter-caste marriage. The court directed the petitioners to undergo custodial investigation with strict bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on bond of Rs. 1 lakh each with one surety, subject to mandatory investigation attendance and court appearances.

Sri. Kariyanaika Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 1179 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1179 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. KARIYANAIKA S/O KRISHNANAIKA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RETIRED DISTRICT ACCOUNTS OFFICER PWD AND AGRICULTURIST.

¶9

SRI NAGARAJANAIKA S/O SOMANAIKA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS EX GRAMPANCHAYATHI MEMBER AGRICULTURIST.

¶10

SRI GANGANAIKA S/O THAVARANAIKA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS AGRICULTURIST.

¶11

Digitally signed by HARSHITHA B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI THIMMANAIKA @ H M RAJU S/O NAGANAIKA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RETIRED HMT EMPLOYEE AGRICULTURIST.

¶13

SRI RAJANAIKA S/O SOMALANAIKA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS AGRICULTURIST.

¶14

SRI KRISHNANAIKA S/O RAJABHAT GANGANAIKA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶15

¶16

CRL.P No. 1179 of 2023

¶17

SRI UMESHANAIKA S/O RAMANAIKA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶18

SRI KRISHNANAIKA S/O SOMANAIKA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS KEB LINE MAN AND AGRICULTURIST

¶19

PETITIONERS 1 TO 8 ARE ALL RESIDENTS OF ALADAKATTE THANDYA KASABA HOBLI C. N. HALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT PIN CODE- 572214

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. DHANANJAYA C M.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE CN HALLI POLICE STATION REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HGIH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560001

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI.V.S. VINAYAKA, HCGP)

¶25

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO190/2022 OF CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI P.S., TUMKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 384,149 OF IPC.THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR HAS DISMISSED THE BAIL PETITION ON 02.01.2023 IN CRL.MISC.NO.10492/2022.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 1179 of 2023

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Heard Sri Dhananjaya, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.V.S.Vinayaka, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

¶31

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶32

“Therefore, the petitioners above named humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to them to the effect that in the event of their arrest in Crime No.190/2022 of Chikkanayakanahalli Police Station, pending before the Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) court JMFC at CN halli Tumkur district which is registered for the offense punishable under sections 384 and 149 IPC, they shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble court, in the interest of justice".

¶33

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶34

A complaint came to be lodged by Sri. Ramanaika son of Bhimanaika for the offences punishable under Section 384 R/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC) registered in Crime

¶35

¶36

CRL.P No. 1179 of 2023

¶37

No190/2022 on 20.12.2022 by Chikkanayakanalli Police Station.

¶38

The gist of the complaint averments reveal that the daughter of the complainant married an inter-caste person. Whereby the petitioners who being the elders said to have imposed the fine to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and it was negotiated and sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- has been paid as fine by the complainant by borrowing the money at high interest rate and sought for action. The complainant also contented that in earlier cases also the petitioners has started imposing fine with those who contracted inter-caste marriage. Therefore, sought for action.

¶39

After registering of the case, the matter has been

¶40

investigated.

¶41

The attempt made by the petitioners to obtain grant of anticipatory bail is turned-down by learned District Judge vide order dated 02.01.2023 in Criminal Misc. No. 10492/2022 Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶42

5 - CRL.P No. 1179 of 2023

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the

¶44

grounds urged in the bail petition vehemently contended that the petitioners are innocent and they are no way connected with the alleged incident and sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶45

Sri.Dhananjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are innocent and if at all anybody who has been put to difficulty by alleged transactions, it is the petitioners themselves and therefore sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶46

Per contra , Sri.V.S.Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposes the bail grounds and sought for rejection of the bail petition.

¶47

In view of the rival contentions, this Court perused

¶48

the materials on record meticulously.

¶49

The daughter of the complainant being the major,

¶50

married a person of her choice and the caste should not come in the way or such marriages. At any rate, the petitioners had

¶51

6 - CRL.P No. 1179 of 2023

¶52

no right whatsoever to impose fine of Rs.1,15,000/- and received from the complainant. Whether at all the petitioners are guilty of the offences cannot be decided by this court.

¶53

Material on record would revel that the petitioners are

¶54

not available for the investigation agency from the date of offence till today, resulting the scuttling the due course of investigation.

¶55

The petitioners, if directed to join the investigation,

¶56

the same would facilitate investigation process as well.

¶57

The apprehension expressed by the prosecution could be met with by imposing suitable and stringent conditions including the petitioners to join the investigation and undergo custodial investigation for a limited period.

¶58

Accordingly, without expressing further opinion on the merits of the case, the following order is passed:

¶59

¶60

CRL.P No. 1179 of 2023

¶61

O R D E R

¶62

The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶63

Petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 18.04.2023 at 10.00 am.

¶64

Petitioners shall be taken to custody by the Investigating Officer and conclude the investigation process on the same day before 4.00 p.m. and thereafter enlarge the petitioners on bail by taking a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶65

Petitioners shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses evidence or hamper the investigation process in any manner and shall co-operate with the investigation process and in that regard they shall mark their attendance in every third Sunday between 10.00 am to 2.00 pm till the final report is filed.

¶66

Petitioners shall attend the Court regularly.

¶67

Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Tumkur District without prior permission.

¶68

¶69

CRL.P No. 1179 of 2023

¶70

Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail.

¶71

Ordered accordingly.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Sri. Kariyanaika v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kariyanaika 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

Mr Joseph Francis Rensen Vs State of Karnataka

Shivaraju @ Kulla Shiva Vs State of Karnataka

Chiranjeevi Vs State by Rmc Yard Police

Mr. Kiran Kumar Vs State by the Karnataka

Shamal Das, Vs the State of Karnataka by

Mr Shivamurthy Vs State of Karnataka