Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1422
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.
Lloyd - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 100438 of 2020
Decided On : 29-09-2020
Neelendra D Gunde, Advocate, Seema Shiva Naik, Advocate
Granting of anticipatory bail based on lack of mention of petitioner's involvement in the complaint, absence of possibility of fleeing from the jurisdiction, and principle of parity with co-accused being granted bail.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Procedure - Sections 143, 147, 448, 504, 354, 307, 427, 109 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving multiple offenses under the Indian Penal Code, arising from a civil dispute and alleged assault on the complainant and her family members.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's involvement in the alleged incident was not mentioned in the complaint, and there was no possibility of the petitioner fleeing from the jurisdiction of the court. Granting bail to co-accused and lack of overt act against the petitioner were considered in favor of granting anticipatory bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail considering the allegations and the possibility of fleeing from the jurisdiction of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the lack of mention of the petitioner's involvement in the complaint, the absence of possibility of fleeing from the jurisdiction, and the principle of parity with co-accused being granted bail, to decide in favor of granting anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with specific conditions to cooperate in the investigation and not tamper with prosecution witnesses.
JUDGMENT
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the accused under Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.81/2018 of Dharwad sub-urban Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 504, 354, 307, 427, 109 and 323 read with Section 149 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).
2. It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint came to be filed by one Smt. Kallawa Pujar, wife of Ramayya Pujar against the petitioner and others alleging that she is residing along with her relatives at Kelgeri-Dharwad and she owns land bearing Block No.89/1B measuring 1 acre 14 guntas at Kelageri and the said property belongs to herself and children of her brothers namely Kallanagouda, Basannagouda and Shankargouda. Accused No.1 had contacted the complainant on 05.02.2011 intending to purchase the said property for Rs.11,00,000/- and paid Rs.4,00,000/- as advance and agreed to pay the remaining amount at the time of execution of the sale deed. However, on the same day itself, the petitioner and another got the sale deed executed in the Sub- Registrar Office, Dharwad, by deceiving the complainant. The complainant has filed a suit in O.S. No.221/2017 before the Civil Court, Dharwad. The said matter came to be compromised before Lok Adalat. However, agreed amount was not paid. It is further alleged that when the amount was demanded, accused No.1 along with others assaulted the complainant and her family members on 24.01.2017. Hence, a complaint came to be filed in Crime No.242/2017 against the petitioner and others. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner along with accused No.1 got constructed a Church in the said site without permission of the Corporation. Even though there was an interim order, the property was sold to accused No.3. The petitioner and others were regularly harassing the complainant for withdrawing the suit. It is further alleged that on 09.07.2018, accused No.1 along with others entered the house of the complainant and dragged her and assaulted her and thereafter tied her hands and left her in the well and with the help of JCB, demolished her house. Accordingly, a complaint came to be filed which is registered in Crime No.81/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 504, 354, 307, 427, 109 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC. The name of the petitioner has been shown as accused No.2 in the FIR. The petitioner filed petition seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc. No.867/2019 and the same came to be rejected by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is civil dispute between the complainant and the petitioner in O.S. No.221/2017 and the same came to be settled in Lok Adalat. It is his further submission that in the incident dated 09.07.2018, there is no role played by the petitioner/accused No.2 but his name came to be shown in the complaint and FIR as there is a civil dispute between him and the complainant. It is his further submission that accused No.1 has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.102294/2019 by order dated 10.12.2019 and accused No.3 has been granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court in Crl.Misc. No.102/2020 dated 19.03.2020 and therefore on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail. It is his further submission that in two criminal cases, in which the petitioner was involved, have been disposed of and the petitioner has been acquitted. It is his further submission that on looking to the averments in the complaint, an offence under Section 307 cannot be m
