w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sanjeev v/s The State of Karnataka, Rep. by S.P.P., Dharwad


    Criminal Petition No. 100402 of 2020

    Decided On, 07 August 2020

    At, High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

    For the Petitioner: Vidyashankar G. Dalwai, Advocate. For the Respondent: Seema Shiva Naik, HCGP.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking to order directing the Old-Hubballi Police Station to release the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.13 of 2020 of Old-Hubballi Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 427, 504, 506, 395 and 149 of IPC.)

1. The petitioner - accused No.1 is before this Court seeking to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.13 of 2020 of Old-Hubballi Police Station as regards the complaint which had been initially lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 427, 504, 506, 395 and 149 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had initially lodged the complaint against one Arbaj in Old-Hubballi Police Station with allegation against the said person as regards offences under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which came to be registered as Crime No.12 of 2020. Subsequently on the same day, a complaint came to be filed at 8:30 p.m. which came to be registered in Crime No.13 of 2020, wherein the said Arbaj had filed complaint stating that one Sanju Mysore of Sahadevnagar had visited his Pan Shop and insisted on a pan to be given to him immediately. When the same was delayed and on demand being made for payment of Rs.20/- towards pan, he abused the complainant with filthy language, threatened him, pulled him out of the shop, beat him with chappal. Later on he called his 15 to 20 friends, who also assaulted the complainant, snatched his gold chain, entered the Pan Shop and took away Rs.25,000/- from the said shop. It is on this basis, complaint in Crime No.13/2020 is stated to have been filed.

3. Shri Vidyashankar G.Dalwai, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complaint filed by the complainant is only a counter blast to the complaint, which was initially filed by him, there is no truth in the complaint, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. On investigation being conducted, a charge sheet has been laid on 01.04.2020 for the offences under Sections 427, 323, 355, 504 and 506 of IPC, whereby leaving out the offences under Sections 143, 147, 149 and 395 of IPC. Thus, he submits that the ex-facie reading of the charge sheet, the offences, which have been now alleged against the petitioner are not one which are punishable with imprisonment for life or death and on this account, he submits that the petitioner is having apprehension of being arrested and ought to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest.

4. Per contra, Miss Seema Shiva Naik, learned HCGP for the respondent-State would submits that though there are certain offences which have been dropped from the charge sheet, the remaining offences are serious in nature inasmuch as there are 15 to 20 people who have assaulted the complainant when demanded for Rs.20/-, they in fact are alleged to have taken away Rs.25,000/- and also gold chain of the complainant. The petitioner, if enlarged on anticipatory bail would tamper with the evidence and witnesses, there is also danger of the petitioner absconding. Hence, she submits that the petition as filed is liable to be rejected.

5. Heard Shri Vidyashankar G.Dalwai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Seema Shiva Naik, learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

6. A perusal of the charge sheet filed indicates that some of the charges have been dropped and the offences which are now alleged against the petitioner are not serious, thus they are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The apprehension on the part of the learned HCGP can be allayed by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, I am of the considered opinion, after having given my anxious thought to the contentions raised in the matter, the petition requires to be allowed. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

The anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.13/2020 of Old-Hubballi Police Station, on the following conditions:

(i) He shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the said court;

(ii) He shall appear before the trial court regularly on the appointed dates;

(iii) He

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

shall not tamper with the evidence or cause any threat to any of the prosecution witness/s in any manner; (iv) In the event of violation of any of the above terms, the above order shall stand automatically cancelled. The observation made above is only for the purpose of consideration of the application for anticipatory bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The trial Court shall dispose the case on merits without being influenced by this order.
O R