Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1423
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.
Shivanand - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka Hrough Honnavar Police Station - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 101112 of 2020
Decided On : 29-09-2020
Srinand A Pachhapure, Advocate, Seema Shiva Naik, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence, the general rule of granting bail, and the need for valid grounds to justify custodial interrogation during an ongoing investigation.
Headnote:
Bail - Offences under IPC - Sections 143, 147, 323 & 364A R/W Section 149 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused Nos. 2 to 4, sought bail in a case registered for offences under Sections 143, 147, 323 & 364A R/W Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case involved allegations of kidnapping and other related offences arising from a dispute over a failed marriage engagement and a financial transaction.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the submissions of both parties and reviewed the FIR, complaint, remand application, and a private complaint. It noted that the investigation was still in progress and that the petitioners had been arrested based on allegations related to a financial transaction and a separate private complaint for cheating. The court also emphasized the principles to be considered in bail applications and cited a relevant Supreme Court decision.
Issues: The key issues included the nature and gravity of the charges, the likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with witnesses, and the necessity of custodial interrogation during an ongoing investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the presumption of innocence, the general rule of granting bail, and the need for valid grounds to justify custodial interrogation. It also highlighted the importance of imposing stringent conditions to address concerns about potential threats to the complainant and prosecution witnesses.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail petition for the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4, subject to specific conditions, considering the lack of grounds for custodial interrogation and the absence of criminal antecedents for the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.163/2020 of Honnavar Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323 & 364A R/W Section 149 OF IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Kumari. Mangala D/o Ishwar Gouda has filed complaint on 07.08.2020 alleging that she was working as teacher in Jnanajyoti Private School in Chikkati village, Taluk Athani, District Belagavi and accused No.1 is the owner of the said school. Both the complainant and accused No.1 fall in love and decided to marry. Accordingly, engagement was performed. For Some reason the complainant refused to marry accused No.1. On account of it and as she failed to return the amount given by the accused No.1, the accused become furious and he used to call her and demanding the amount. On 07.08.2020 at about 7.15 p.m. he came to Kankod cross along with other accused persons in car No.KA-05/MD-2835 and another car wrongfully restrained the complainant and her brother while going on motorcycle and forcibly they kidnapped her brother in car. The complainant made hue and cry and villagers came and stopped one car and rescued complainant's brother and caught hold the accused Nos.2 and 3. Accused No.1 and other accused ran away from the spot in another car. Complainant went to Honnavar Police Station and lodged a complaint and the same came to be registered in Crime No.163/2020 of Honnavar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323 and 364A r/w Section 149.IPC. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 were arrested on 08.08.2020 and remanded to judicial custody. Petitioners approached Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttar Kannada, Karwar seeking bail and the same came to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitionersaccused Nos.2 to 4 and learned HCGP for respondent- State.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 that there is no demand for any money from any person. Therefore, the provision punishable under Section 364A is not attracted. It is his further submission that brother of the complainant who is alleged to have been kidnapped has been rescued. Even though, accused Nos.2 and 3 were secured on the same day by the villagers, the date of arrest is shown as 08.08.2020 in remand application. There is a money transaction between accused No.1 and complainant and therefore, a false complaint came to be filed. It is his further submission that one Basappa S/o Shivagonda Payagon lodged a private complaint in P.C.No.44/2020 against the accused No.1, complainant and her brother regarding cheating made by them. It is his further submission that petitioners went to get their amount form accused No.1 and complainant. Therefore, a false complaint came to be filed against them. With this he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that investigation is still in progress and charge sheet is yet to be filed. It is her further submission that petitionersaccused Nos.2 to 4 have been kidnapped complainant's brother. It is her further submission that petitioners are required for custodial interrogation as investigation is in progress. If petitioners-accused No.2 to 4 are released on bail, they will hamper investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses and they may flee from justice. With these, she prays to reject the bail petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the FIR, Complaint, remand application and copy of private complaint. On perusal of the copy of the private complaint No.44/2020 filed by Basappa against petitioner-accused No.1, complainant and complainant's brother reveal that they were running scheme by collecting a sum of Rs.35,000/- from public on the assurance t
