Allowed

Puttappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2023CRL.P/1196/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving seizure of illicit liquor. The court directed the petitioner to join the investigation and appeared before the investigating officer on a specified date. Bail was granted subject to conditions including cooperation with the probe and a bond amount of Rs. 1,00,000.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to join investigation on a specified date; bail enlarged on executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties subject to several conditions.

Puttappa Vs State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 1196 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1196 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PUTTAPPA S/O ANNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/AT JAGADALU GINIKAL VILLAGE, SRINGERI TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577139

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHAMANNA B H., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRINGERI POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560001

¶14

(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S, HCGP)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.59/2022 REGISTERED BY SRINGERI POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 32 AND 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., SRINGERI, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 1196 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri B.H. Shamanna, learned counsel for the

¶22

petitioner and Sri V.S. Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader, for the respondent-State.

¶23

2. This petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.PC. with

¶24

the following prayer:

¶25

" Wherefore, the petitioner above named most humbly respectfully pray that, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest, in Crime No.59/2022, of the respondent - Sringeri Police, for the offence punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, now pending on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC Court, Shringeri, Chikkamagalur District, imposing any conditions by this Hon'ble Court as deems fit under the circumstances in the interest of justice and equity."

¶26

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:.

¶27

On the credible information received by Bharamappa Belagali, PSI of Sringeri Police Station, a raid was conducted in

¶28

¶29

CRL.P No. 1196 of 2023

¶30

front of the shop of the petitioner, wherein 8 (eight) liters of illicit liquor was seized.

¶31

On enquiry with the others, it is noticed that the raid party came to know that the liquor was purchased from the shop of the petitioner and was being illegally sold on the road.

¶32

Based on the said report, a case came to be registered in Crime No.59/2022 of Shringeri Police Station on 3.11.2022 for the offence punishable under sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act.

¶33

The attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of anticipatory bail is turned down by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, by order dated 18.11.2022 in Crl.Misc. No.1089/2022. Thereafter, the petitioner is before the trial court.

¶34

Reiterating the grounds urged Sri B.H. Shamanna, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that at the time of raid, the shop of the petitioner was closed and there is no material on record, except the say of the head of the raid party that the seized illicit liquor was purchased from the shop of the petitioner.

¶35

¶36

CRL.P No. 1196 of 2023

¶37

He further contended that in the absence of any connecting material placed on record, there is no direct or indirect nexus between the petitioner and the alleged crime and prayed for grant bail.

¶38

Per contra, learned high court government pleader opposes the grant bail and perused the material on record.

¶39

Admittedly, the illicit liquor was seized on the spot. According to the petitioner, if the owner of the liquor shop have a proper licence and at the time of incident, the liquor shop was closed, whether at all, if the liquor purchased from the petitioner shop and being sold on the public road, without there being any licence or etc., are the matters to be investigated by the police after thorough investigation.

¶40

Suffice to say, from the date of offence, the petitioner is not available to the investigating agency and therefore, the investigation has crippled.

¶41

Directing the petitioner to join the investigation would facilitate the investigation process and also protect the rights of the petitioner.

¶42

¶43

CRL.P No. 1196 of 2023

¶44

13. Accordingly, pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The Criminal petition is allowed subject to the

¶47

following conditions:

¶48

(1) The Petitioner is directed to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigation Officer on 17.03.2023 at 10.00 a.m.

¶49

(2) The Investigating Officer is at liberty to take the petitioner to custody and complete the custodial investigation if any, on the same day before 6.00 p.m. and thereafter, the petitioner be enlarged on bail, on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only (Rupees one lakh) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Police/Trial Court.

¶50

(3) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency in all respects.

¶51

(4) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

¶52

(5) The Petitioner shall mark attendance before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Sunday between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm., till the final report is filed.

¶53

¶54

CRL.P No. 1196 of 2023

¶55

(6) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper the prosecution evidence or hamper the investigation process in any manner.

¶56

(7) The Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Chikkamagaluru District without prior permission.

¶57

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

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69

Puttappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puttappa 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

Veerabhadraiah. H. N. Vs State of Karnataka by Kaggalipura

Sri. Mahesh Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Prashanth @ Pachu @ Pachile Pacchu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Thulasiraman K Vs State by Inspector of Customs Ciu Airport and Aircargo Complex Bengaluru

Sri Suresh H K Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Surya Vs the State Rep by SHO