Karnataka High Court

Shrimant Shreemant S/O Basappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2021

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                           1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 25 T H DAY OF JUNE 2021
                        BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.101102 OF 2021

   BETWEEN

   SHRIMANT @ SHREEMANT
   S/O BASA PPA HOLKAR
   AGE. 45 YEARS , OCC. ADVOCATE
   RAIBAG TOWN ,
   TQ. RAIBAG
   DIST. BELAGAVI- 591319
                                       ...PETITIONER
   (BY SRI.K . ANAND KUMAR, ADV.)

   AND

   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   THROUGH P.S.I . RAIBAG POLICE STA TION,
   REPRES ENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
   HIGH COURT BUILDING,
   DHARWAD BEN CH DHARWD
                                        ...RESPONDENT
   (BY SRI.R.RAVIND RA NAIK, HCGP)

        THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF
   CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A LLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINA L
   PETITION AND CONSEQUENT LY BE PLEAS E TO ISSUE
   DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT RAIBAG POLICE T O
   RELESE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
   HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.84/ 2021 FOR THE OFFEN CE
   PUNISHABLE UND ER SEC.143, 147, 148, 302 R/W 149
   OF THE I PC.
                              2




    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON                         FOR
ORDERS  THIS  DAY,  THE   COURT MADE                         THE
FOLLOWING:
                          ORDER

This petition is filed by the

petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for

brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.84/2021 of

Raibag Police Station, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,

148, 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for

brevity).

2. It is the case of the prosecution that

the deceased by name Purandar was familiar to

one Maruti Halingali and his family members,

including his daughter Veena, who are

residents of same village and he used to assist

them by attending some of their work. The

daughter of said Maruti Halingali by name

Veena is married of to accused No.1 by name

Vasant Babu Holkar. On 25.04.2021 a

seminude photo of deceased is said to have

been sent to the WhatsApp of Veena, the wife

of accused NO.1. The accused No.1 having

come to know it called the deceased to Raibag

on 26.04.2021 at about 5 p.m. The deceased

informed his brother i.e. complainant that in

respect of uploading a photo in a group the

accused No.1 Vasant has questioned as to why

he has uploaded such photo and when he

intended to reply to it the accused No.1 called

him to come to house of this petitioner in

Raibag. Therefore, he solicited the company of

complainant to Raibag to the house of this

petitioner. This petitioner is cousin of accused

No.1. On 27.04.20221 at about 9 a.m. the

deceased, the complainant and the said Maruti

Halingali left to the house of this petitioner at

Raibag in the Tavera Jeep of said Maruti

Halingali and reached the house of petitioner

at 9.30 a.m. The jeep was driven by the

deceased. When in the house of petitioner

they asked what is the issue, then the

petitioner is said to have told that he has some

inquiry with the deceased with regard to

uploading a photo and asked them to go out

and stroll somewhere for some time. The

petitioner himself arranged for the driver to

the Tavera jeep by name Chidhanand / accused

No.3, who took them in the Tavera vehicle near

the old Police Station building. They were

waiting there. At about 10.30 a.m. the first

informant by walk came to the house of this

petitioner and did not notice anybody. He

returned to the place near old Police Station.

By 2.00 p.m. he obtained the mobile phone

number of this petitioner from aforesaid Maruti

Halingali and made a call to the petitioner.

The petitioner having received it and

ascertaining the identity of complainant asking

him to wait for 10 minutes disconnected the

call. By 2.30 p.m. petitioner called back the

first informant asking them to come to his

house. When the complainant expressed that

either of them do not know driving the

petitioner again arranged accused No.3 as the

driver, who picked complainant and another

person Shivanand Kalliguddi, who had joined

complainant in the mean time, from the place

near the old Police Station and drove them to

the house of petitioner. Then the accused

No.1, this petitioner and three other accused

informing that the deceased has swooned and

fallen informed to take him to hospital. By

stating so the body of deceased was placed

inside the said Tavera jeep. Again the accused

No.3 Chidanand on pretext of taking of

deceased to hospital drove the jeep for some

distance and thereafter left the jeep at the

canal bridge and returned. With the assistance

of passersby the complainant managed to shift

the deceased to hospital, where the doctor

declared him as brought dead. The

complainant had noticed multiple injuries over

the body of the deceased and to the head. The

petitioner has named in the FIR as accused

No.2, apprehending the arrest, petitioner has

filed Crl. Misc. No.5286/2021 seeking

anticipatory bail and the same came to be

rejected by VII Addl. District and Sessions

Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi by order

dated 04.06.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is

before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner/accused No.2 and the learned

High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner

has submitted that the petitioner is innocent,

he has not committed any offence as alleged

against him and he has been falsely implicated

in the case. The petitioner is a practicing

advocate and a law abiding citizen and ready to

co-operate with the Police in the investigation.

It is his further submission that if the

petitioner is arrested affects his reputation in

the Society and his profession. The petitioner

is tested positive for Covid-19 and he requires

post Covid-19 care to recover from the said

illness. He further contends that petitioner is

ready to abide by the terms and conditions to

be imposed by this Court. With these, he

prayed for allowing the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court

Government Pleader submitted that the

incident has taken place in the house of the

petitioner and blood stains are found in the

house of the petitioner. The investigation is

still in progress and what is the role of the

petitioner can be ascertained only after filing

final report and if at this stage anticipatory

bail is granted, petitioner/accused No.2 will

hamper investigation and tamper prosecution

witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he

prayed to reject the petition.

6. Having regard to the submission

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned High Court Government

Pleader, this Court has gone through the

charge sheet records.

7. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre

Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR

2011 SC 312, the Hon'ble Apex Court after

analyzing various previous judgment and

guidelines, has enumerated the following

factors and parameters that can be taken into

consideration by Courts while dealing with the

anticipatory bail:

(i) The nature and gravity o f the accusatio n and the exact ro le o f the accuse d must be pro perly compre hended before arrest is made ;

(ii) The antecede nts o f the applicant including the fact as to whe ther the accused has previously

unde rgone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respe ct of any cognizable o ffence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee fro m justice;

(iv) The possibility o f the accused's likelihoo d to repeat similar or o ther offences;

(v) Where the accusations have been made o nly with the object of injuring o r humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a ve ry large number o f people;

(vii) The Courts must evaluate the entire available mate rial against the accuse d very carefully. The Court must also cle arly comprehend the exact ro le o f the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the he lp of Sectio ns 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860, the Court should consider with even greater care and caution because ove r- implication in the cases is a matte r of common knowledge and co ncern;

(viii) While considering the prayer fo r grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, name ly, no prejudice

should be caused to the free , fair and full investigatio n, and the re sho uld be preve ntion of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention o f the accused;

(ix) The Court to conside r reasonable apprehension of tampe ring o f the witness o r apprehension of threat to the co mplainant;

(x) Frivo lity in prosecutio n should always be conside red and it is only the e lement of genuineness that shall have to be conside red in the matte r o f grant of bail, and in the e vent of there be ing some doubt as to the genuineness o f the prosecution, in the normal course o f e vents, the accused is entitle d to an order of bail.

8. The accusation leveled against the

petitioner is that the deceased was called by

the petitioner and his cousin brother/accused

No.1 to his house for making enquiry with

regard to deceased uploading his seminude

photo and sending it to wife of accused No.1.

The deceased sustained injuries and he was

taken to hospital and doctor who examined him

reported that he is dead. At present, except

the blood stains found in the house of the

petitioner, there are no other circumstances to

involve this petitioner in the present crime.

The petitioner is an advocate and is a law

abiding citizen and his presence can be secured

easily for the purpose of investigation and

trial. The petitioner has been tested positive

for Covid-19 and he requires post Covid-19

care. There are no criminal antecedents of the

petitioner. The petitioner has undertaken to

abide by the terms and conditions imposed by

this Court and co-operate Police in the

investigation. Therefore, he can be admitted

for grant of anticipatory bail. The

apprehension of the prosecution is that if the

petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will

hamper the investigation and tamper

prosecution witnesses can be met with by

imposing suitable conditions.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the

case and submission of the counsel, this Court

is of the view that there are valid grounds for

grant of anticipatory bail subject to certain

terms and conditions. Hence, I pass the

following:

ORDER

Criminal petition filed under Section 438

of Cr.P.C. is allowed. In the event of arrest,

petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in

connection with Crime No.84/2021 of Raibag

Police Station with the following conditions:


  i. Petitioner       shall   execute        a    personal

    bond       for    a    sum     of   Rs.1,00,000/-

    (Rupees          One   Lakh    Only)         with    one





    surety     for     the     like        sum    to      the

    satisfaction       of      the         Investigating

Officer/Jurisdictional Court.

ii. The petitioner shall voluntarily

surrender before the Investigating

officer/Jurisdictional Court within a

month and execute personal bond and

furnish surety.

iii. The petitioner shall co-operate with

the investigation and make himself

available for interrogation whenever

required.

iv. The petitioners shall not directly or

indirectly make any inducement, threat