Allowed

Mariyamma W/O Mariyappa Channadasar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Feb 2024CRL.P/100644/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to six accused persons facing charges under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 149 of the IPC. The offences stem from a criminal complaint lodged by a family member regarding a property dispute.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 6 are enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Connection with Crime No. 143/2023.

Mariyamma W/O Mariyappa Channadasar Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4452 CRL.P No. 100644 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100644 OF 2024 (438)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MARIYAMMA W/O.MARIYAPPA CHANNADASAR, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O GANGANAL VILLAGE, TALUK & DISTRICT: KOPPAL-583231.

¶10

PRAKASH S/O. MARIYAPPA CHANNADASAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O GANGANAL VILLAGE, TALUK & DISTRICT: KOPPAL-583231.

¶11

HULIGEMMA W/O. ASHOK, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O GANGANAL VILLAGE TALUK & DISTRICT: KOPPAL-583231.

¶12

Digitally
signed by
ANNAPURNA
ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA
CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL
DANDAGAL Date:
2024.02.23
13:05:36
+0530

¶13

DYAMAVVA @ TARA W/O. HANAMATH, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O GANGANAL VILLAGE, TALUK & DISTRICT: KOPPAL-583231.

¶14

VIRUPAKSHAPPA

¶15

S/O. RAMANNA CHANNADASAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O GANGANAL VILLAGE, TALUK & DISTRICT: KOPPAL-583 231.

¶16

NARASAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA CHANNADASAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O GANGANAL VILLAGE, TALUK & DISTRICT: KOPPAL-583231.

¶17

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA V. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4452 CRL.P No. 100644 of 2024

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KOPPAL TOWN P.S., REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI T. P. MALIPATIL, AGA)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING THAT PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6 MAY BE RELEASED ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO. 143/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 419, 420, 468 AND 471 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC BEFORE KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION, PENDING IN THE COURT AT KOPPAL ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.143/2023 registered

¶28

by Koppal Town Police Station, Koppal District for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short,

¶29

‘IPC’) are before this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:4452 CRL.P No. 100644 of 2024

¶32

FIR in Crime No.143/2023 was registered by

¶33

Koppal Town Police Station, Koppal District for the aforementioned offences against the petitioners herein and others on the basis of typed complaint dated 20.12.2023 lodged by Ningappa S/o. Mariyappa Channadasar, who is the son of petitioner No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2. Apprehending arrest in the said case, the petitioners had filed Crl.Misc.No.1/2024 before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal which was dismissed as against them on 08.02.2024. Therefore, they are before this Court.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, prays to allow the petition.

¶35

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the petition.

¶36

From a reading of the averments made in the typed complaint dated 20.12.2023, which had resulted in registering FIR in Crime No.143/2023 against the petitioners and others for the aforesaid offences, it is seen

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:4452 CRL.P No. 100644 of 2024

¶38

that the complainant and the petitioners are all relatives. Complainant is the son of petitioner No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2. It appears that there is a civil dispute between the parties with regard to partitioning of their family properties. The alleged offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and maximum punishment for the said offences is imprisonment for a period of 07 years. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are ladies and all the accused persons are agriculturists. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail is required to be answered in the affirmative. Accordingly, the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Petition is allowed.

¶41

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 are directed to be

¶42

enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.143/2023 registered by Koppal Town Police Station, Koppal District for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4452 CRL.P No. 100644 of 2024

¶45

i. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/each with 01 surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶46

ii. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 shall regularly appear before the Trial Court without fail unless exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.

¶47

iii. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶48

iv. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation in the case.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

CKK CT:GSM

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Mariyamma W/O Mariyappa Channadasar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariyamma W/O Mariyappa Channadasar 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

Mithun Aliyas Meethun Shettys/O Bojaraj Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Kritapur Chits(P) Ltd.,Gadag Vs Swetha W/O Manjunath Solanki

Basavanand S/O Shankareppa Jitti Vs Vijaykumar S/O Channappa Malbasari

Shivakumar S/O Basavaraj Mestri Vs State of Karnataka

Vishnappa Aliyas Shivu S/O Yallappa Kuri Vs State of Karnataka

Kallappa S/O Hanamant Byakud Vs State of Karnataka