Renawwa W/O Goudappa Poleshi vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 7042 Kant

                          1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                KALABURAGI BENCH

  DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

        CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200241/2021

BETWEEN:

SMT. RENAWWA W/O GOUDAPPA
@ TIPPANNA POLESHI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O HULIBENCHI
TQ. B.BAGEWADI
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586203

                                        ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI R.S.LAGALI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   THROUGH THE SHO, BASAVANA BAGEWADI P.S
   REP. BY THE ADDL. SPP
   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
   KALABURAGI-585107

2. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O KUBER PHIRANGI
   AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
   R/O HULIBENCHI TQ. B.BAGEWADI
   DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586203
                                     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP)

   THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A OF
SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT) PRAYING TO ALLOW
                              2




THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND RELAX THE CONDITION NO.1 IN
ORDER DATED 31.12.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SESSIONS
COURT, VIJAYAPURA IN CRL. MISC. NO.1190/2020 WHICH WAS
FURTHER EXTENDED IN CRL. MISC. NO. 179/2021 VIDE ORDER
DATED 12.04.2021 AND IMPOSE ANY OTHER CONDITION.


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


                       JUDGMENT

Heard the appellant's counsel and the learned High

Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the case

was registered against the appellant and other accused for

the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323,

504, 506 read with section 149 of IPC and section 3(1)(i),

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Prevention of Atrocities Amendment Act,

2015, and after registration of the case, this appellant

along with others have approached the II Additional

Sessions Judge, Vijayapur and the Court vide order dated

31.12.2020 granted bail subject to conditions and directed

the appellant to appear before the concerned police within

15 days from the date of the order and thereafter to move

for regular bail before the concerned jurisdictional police

within 30 days from the date of the order. The said

condition has not been complied. However, the appellant

once again approached the very same Court and the Court

vide order dated 12.04.2021 modified the earlier condition

and extended time for 30 days from the date of the order

and also to move for regular bail. Though this order was

passed on 12.04.2021, within the said period also the

appellant has not complied the order and hence, now in

this appeal again sought for relaxing the condition No.1

passed in the order dated 31.12.2020 as well as the order

dated 12.04.2021.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits

that earlier the Sessions Court directed the appellant to

furnish two local solvent sureties with solvent certificate.

He contends that imposing of such condition is as good as

denying the bail. The appellant is a woman and

economically very downtrodden and the appellant is unable

to secure solvent sureties by herself and she was

depended on other accused persons. It is contended that

the appellant, her husband and relatives tried very hard

but could not complied with the order of the Court and

hence, this Court has to extend time.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader would submit that bail petition was allowed vide

order dated 31.12.2020 and within 30 days the condition is

not complied. However, Sessions Judge again entertained

the criminal Misc.No.179/2021 and vide order dated

12.04.2021 granted 30 days time to comply with the order

and inspite of the same, the said order was not complied

and belatedly filing this petition approached this Court

after lapse of 7 months.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader

for the State and having considered the material on

record, admittedly the bail was granted vide order dated

31.12.2020 and condition was imposed for 30 days and

inspite of the same, the condition was not complied and

again approached the Court for extension of time and time

was again extended vide order dated 12.04.2021 and

inspite of the time was given for 30 days for compliance,

the appellant again has not complied the order. The main

contention of the appellant's counsel is that the trial Court

while granting the bail ordered to furnish solvent sureties

along with solvency certificate. On perusal of the records,

the appellant has not sought for any modification of the

order passed to furnish the solvent sureties but only

sought for extension of time and already Sessions Court

had granted the bail extending the benefit of extension of

time and inspite of extension of time, the appellant has not

complied the condition after lapse of 7 months and again

approached this Court for extension of time. It shows that

appellant is not having any respect to the orders passed by

the Court and made it a habit in seeking extension of time

according to his whims and fancies and hence, it is not a fit

case for extension of time again and again.

6. In view of the discussion made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VNR