Allowed

Chandresh Y.G. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2023CRL.P/1314/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners, facing arrest for offences under IPC, were granted bail in the event of arrest but directed to undergo limited custodial investigation by a specified date.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in event of arrest. Petitioners to undergo limited custodial investigation, appear alternatively on Sundays, and execute bond of Rs. 1,00,000.

Chandresh Y.G. Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 1314 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1314 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

CHANDRESH Y.G. S/O GOVINDA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶8

GOVINDA NAIKA Y S S/O LATE SOMLA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶9

BOTH ARE R/AT YALUGERE VILLAGE, DUGALAPURA POST, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-577228

¶10

Digitally signed by YASHODA KRISHNAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. JAYAPRAKASH H., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TARIKERE TOWN P S, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP)

¶16

¶17

CRL.P No. 1314 of 2023

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.240/2022 OF TARIKERE TOWN P.S., CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323,324,354,307,504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC, TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri Jayaprakash.H, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Vishwamurthy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶22

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

¶23

“Wherefore, the petitioners humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant the Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners under Section 438 of the Cr.PC in Cr. No. 240/2022 for alleged offences U/S 323, 324, 354, 307, 504, 506 R/W 34 of IPC, in the event of their arrest by the respondent police Tarikere Town PS they may be enlarged on bail, pending of the file of the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge & Prl. JMFC, Tarikere, Chickmagaluru District, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶24

¶25

CRL.P No. 1314 of 2023

¶26

Petitioners are apprehending arrest at the hands of Tarikere Town Police Station in respect of Crime No.240/2022, wherein offences under Sections 323, 324, 354, 307, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC are alleged against the petitioners.

¶27

The facts of the complaint averments are as under:

¶28

Sarojabai, W/o Chandranaika lodged a complaint with Tarikere Police stating that on 26.10.2022 at about 1.30 p.m., on account of Deepavali festival, there is a ritual whereunder the members of the family would assemble and offer food and other items in respect of the people who have deceased earlier and in that regard at about 3.30 p.m. when complainant and others had been to offer the food and other items, the petitioners came there and abused the complainant in filthy language stating that why the petitioners are not involved in the said ritual and

¶29

¶30

CRL.P No. 1314 of 2023

¶31

in the process, there was also an assault by the knife to

¶32

the son of the complainant and therefore sought for bail.

¶33

The police after registering the case had investigated the matter. In the meantime, the petitioners approached the learned District Judge, Chikkamagaluru, for grant of anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.Petn.No.1097/2022. The request of the

¶34

petitioners was turned down by the learned Prl. District Judge by order dated 23.11.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that on 06.12.2021 the complaint came to be lodged against

¶36

the complainant and others, which was registered in Crime No.265/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and on account of the same, the complainant nurtured enmity between the petitioners herein and a false

¶37

¶38

CRL.P No. 1314 of 2023

¶39

complaint came to be lodged against the petitioners and sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶40

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the grant of bail by contending that in the incident, the 1^st petitioner assaulted the son of the complainant with a knife and therefore, custodial interrogation is utmost necessary in order to recover the weapon used in the incident and sought for rejection of the bail.

¶41

Perused the material on record meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties.

¶42

On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that there is earlier complaint lodged by the accused party as against complainant party, which was registered in Crime No.265/2021 on 06.12.2021 at Tarikere Town

¶43

Police for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

¶44

¶45

CRL.P No. 1314 of 2023

¶46

If such A complaint is already pending against the complainant, the question of complainant being involved in the rituals on account of the Deepavali festival per se may not arise.

¶47

Nevertheless, it is for the investigation agency to find out the veracity of the complaint averments after thorough investigation. Suffice to say that the injured has been discharged from the hospital with a history of simple injury, would result in gravity of the offences against the petitioners herein to reduce the suitable extent.

¶48

The petitioners are not available for the investigation agency despite their request for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected on 23.11.2022. If the petitioners are directed to join the investigation and undergo limited period of custodial investigation, the ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(1) The criminal petition is allowed .

¶51

¶52

CRL.P No. 1314 of 2023

¶53

(2) Petitioners are directed to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer on 29.03.2023 at 10.00 a.m.

¶54

(3) The Investigating Officer is at liberty to take the petitioners to custody and complete the custodial investigation if any, on the same day before 6.00 p.m. and thereafter enlarge the petitioners on bail, by taking a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each, with two sureties for the likesum.

¶55

(4) The petitioners are directed to cooperate with the investigating agency and they shall mark their attendance every alternative Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m.

¶56

(5) Petitioners shall attend the Court regularly.

¶57

¶58

CRL.P No. 1314 of 2023

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle

¶62

the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail.

¶63

Ordered accordingly.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

KLY

Chandresh Y.G. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandresh Y.G. 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

Kiran @ Gobi Kiran @ Kiran Kumar. Y. K. Vs State of Karnataka

Govinda Nayaka Vs State by Vijayanagar Police

Ashiq a Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Harisha Vs the State by

Gowrisha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sharath a P @ Sharu Vs the State of Karnataka