Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 334
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Hasansab Bevingidad - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka And Another - Respondents
Criminal Petition No.101008 of 2019
Decided On : 17-02-2020
Sri. M.H. Patil, Advocate and Sri Harshawardhan M.Patil, Advocate, for the Appellant; Smt. Seema Shiva Naik, HCGP, for the Respondent No. 1; Sri G.B. Naik & P.G. Naik, Advocates, for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3
Bail can be cancelled if the accused violate the terms and tamper with witnesses, and an expeditious trial is necessary in such circumstances.
Headnote:
Cancellation of Bail - Criminal Offences - IPC Sections 341, 302, 201, 120-B r/w 34 - The court discussed the violation of bail conditions, threats to prosecution witnesses, and assault on the complainant and the deceased's wife. The court relied on the principle that bail can be cancelled if the accused violate the terms and tamper with witnesses. The decision was influenced by the interpretation of extraordinary circumstances for bail cancellation and the need for expeditious trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted to the accused for criminal offences under IPC Sections 341, 302, 201, 120-B r/w 34. The accused had allegedly threatened the petitioner and the deceased's wife, and assaulted the wife, leading to a violation of bail conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had violated bail conditions by threatening and assaulting the prosecution witnesses, justifying the cancellation of bail. It directed the accused to be taken into custody immediately and provided security to the complainant pending trial. The trial Court was also directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within six months.
Issues: The issues involved the violation of bail conditions, threats to witnesses, and assault on the complainant and the deceased's wife.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that bail can be cancelled if the accused violate the terms and tamper with witnesses. It also considered the need for an expeditious trial in such circumstances.
Final Decision: The bail granted to the accused was cancelled, and they were directed to be taken into custody immediately. The trial Court was instructed to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within six months.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner before this Court seeking for cancellation of bail granted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Criminal Misc.No.452/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302, 201 and 120-B r/w 34 of IPC arising from Murgod P.S. Crime No.287/2018.
2. The petitioner is before this Court was the original complainant who had filed a complaint before the Gokak Rural P.S. Crime No.184/2017 stating that she was residing at Mamadapur village along with her husband since last more than 10 years. She was the second wife of Mehboobsab Bevingidad and they were together doing vegetable business and leading happy married life. On 15.08.2017, her husband had been to the market at Hirenandi but did not return. She enquired with the villagers, when she was informed that her husband had not come to the market hence she filed a missing complaint before the Gokak Rural P.S. on 16.08.2017. The police found the dead body of her husband at Dasnal canal on 21.08.2017. On 22.08.2017, the petitioner had lodged one more complaint before the police which came to be registered as P.S.Crime No.287/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein who are accused Nos.1 and 2 therein for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302, 201, 120B r/w 34 of IPC.
3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 preferred an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking for bail. The trial Court vide its order dated 18.03.2019 was pleased to grant bail to the petitioners by imposing certain conditions. The said bail was granted by the Sessions Court on the ground that the charge sheet has been filed against the accused and their presence in judicial custody was no longer required. Hence, among other conditions imposed, there are specific conditions imposed that the petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witness/evidence or involve themselves in any offences.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order had approached this Court by filing objection on 31.05.2019 seeking for cancellation of bail stating that subsequent to such grant of bail respondent Nos.2 and 3 are torturing mentally and threatened to kill the wife of the deceased and her children. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 knowing fully well that if petitioner were to depose in the matter, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are likely to be convicted are threatening the petitioner and have called upon the petitioner not to depose in the matter.
5. While the above matter was pending, the wife of the deceased Ameenama had filed a complaint on 29.08.2019 alleging that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had on 26.08.2019 at about 10.30 a.m., threatened her and her children with dire consequences, if she were to depose against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 they had also warned her that she would meet the same fate as her husband, if she deposed against them. Subsequently, another complaint came to be filed on 21.12.2019, stating that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had assaulted her in the market place and once again warned her that she should not depose in the matter. She had suffered injuries and therefore had been treated in a hospital at Gokak. The wound certificate has also been produced to show that there is a deep wound on her right wrist, right elbow and contusion on the right side of the chest and right side of the lower back.
6. The petitioner submits that a crime No.154/2019 has also been registered in regard thereto. Subsequent to the filing of the petition Sri Harshawardhan Patil, counsel would contend that those have to be taken into consideration by this Court and the bail granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3 may be cancelled since there is a clear and categorical violation of the terms of the bail. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have tried to tamper with the prosecution witnesses as also indulged in further offences.
7. Smt. P.G.Naik, learned counsel submits that the complaints as field are make belie
