Somanath Holede Matada vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3901 Kant

                          1




          IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNAT AKA
                  DHARWAD B ENCH

       DATED THIS THE 8 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                       BEFORE

         THE HON'B LE MR. JU ST ICE P.N.DESAI


             CRL.P.N O.100476 OF 2022


BETWEEN


1.   SOMANATH HOLEDE MATADA
     S/O VEERAIAH H M
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
     OCC: SUPERINTENDENT IN
     KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY HAMPI
     HOSAPET TALUK

2.   SMT. ROOPA
     W/O SOMANATH
     HOLEDE MATADA,
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
     OCC HOUSEWIFE,

3.   KUM RACHANA HOLEDA MATADA
     D/O. SOMANATH HOLEDA MATADA
     AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
     OCC SOFTWARE ENGINEER

     ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.47,
     GROUND FLOOR,
     CHOWDESHWARI
     LAYOUT,NEAR GOOD WOOD APARTMENT,
     NEGUR-560114,
     BENGALURU SOUTH.

     NOW R/O.M.P. PRAKASH NAGAR,
     HOSAPETE,
                         2




   TQ-HOSAPETE,
   DISTRICT-VIJAYANAGAR-583201.

                                   ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.G I GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)


AND


THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS
HOSAPETE RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
DHARWAD

                                   ...RESPONDENT

(BY SMT.GIRIJA HIREMATH,HCGP)


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FIL ED U/S 438 OF

CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON

ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.5/2022 HOSAPETE

RURAL POLICE STATION, HOSAPETE SUB DIVISION,

VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE

PUNISHABLE U/S 406, 420, 307, 504, R/W SECTION

34 OF IPC, IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST.


      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                              3




                         ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by

petitioners/accused with a prayer to enlarge them on

anticipatory bail in Crime No.5/2022 of Hosapete Rural

Police Station, registered for offence punishable under

Sections 406, 420, 307, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. It is the case of prosecution that complainant

by name Amarappa Sajjan S/o Basanna Sajjan has

lodged a complaint with the Dy.S.P.Sandur, alleging that

these petitioners who are wife and daughter of petitioner

no.1, promising them that they will get a job of Excise

Sub-Inspector as they are having contact with

Government level higher officials and political leaders,

demanded Rs.20,00,000/- in this regard. Thereafter,

through phone petitioner no.1 called him and took the

said amount. But he did not get any job. Petitioners

started dragging the matter since from one year. When

complainant demanded money, the petitioner No.1 told

that he is ready to give one site situated at Hospete,

measuring 40'X60'. In this regard, he got an agreement

of sale. It is informed to first informant by petitioner

No.1 that he did not return their money, he will execute

sale deed. But not re-paid the amount nor executed the

sale deed. Complainant filed a suit for specific

performance of contract of sale. It is further alleged

that on 14.04.2021, complainant called the petitioner

No.1 to his house and took them to a place known to

him. But, lodged complaint against this complainant

itself. Therefore, first informant has lodged complaint

stating that all the petitioners have cheated him and

when he went to ask them for returning money,

petitioners abused him in filthy language and try to

squeezed his neck and attempted to commit his murder.

Accordingly, he lodged complaint. On the basis of said

complaint, case in crime No.5/2022 of Hosapete Rural

Police station for the offences punishable under Sections

406, 420, 307, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Now,

apprehending their arrest, petitioners have filed this

petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners

Sri.G.I.Gachchinamath argued that these petitioners

have been falsely implicated just to take personal

vengeance. It is contended that complainant himself

has started civil litigation and abducted petitioner No.1

and took his signature on blank paper. In this regard,

the charge sheet has been already been filed. The

learned counsel further contended that on bare reading

of complaint, it does not make out as to exactly when

and where the incident took place. It is only an after

thought and complaint has been lodged before Dy.S.P.

and not before jurisdictional police station. There is a

delay in filing complaint. Petitioner No.1 is government

servant and petitioner no.3 is marriage age girl. Learned

counsel argued that petitioner No.3 is working as

software engineer at Bengaluru. There is already civil

dispute pending. Only at the instance of complainant,

just to see that petitioners are harassed and humiliated,

a false case is filed. Petitioners are law abiding citizens

and they are ready to abide by the conditions to be

imposed by this Court. With these main arguments he

prays to allow the petition.

4. Against this, learned HCGP has argued that

alleged offences are non-bailable and serious one.

Though, there is civil litigation between them, but,

looking into the contents of the petition and the

averments made by complainant, as still investigation is

not completed, if petitioners are enlarged on bail, they

will tamper prosecution witnesses and flee from justice.

With this HCGP prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Heard Sri.G.I.Gachchinamath, the learned

counsel for petitioners and Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State

and perused the material on record.

6. I have perused the contentions of the first

informant/complaint lodged by Amarappa Sajjan.

Admittedly, civil dispute has been taken place between

them in OS No.8/2019 as evident from copy of the

judgment in OS No.8/2019, petitioner No.1-Somanath

Holede Matada is the defendant. In that case, he has

also filed written statement denying contents of

complainant. It is evident that petitioner No.1 has

lodged complaint on 14.04.2021 alleging that the

complainant in this case along with three others have

committed offence punishable under Sections 323, 324,

341, 342, 363, 307, 355, 364A, 504 r/w 34 IPC and also

under Section 3(1)(s), 3(1)(r ), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled

Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 and in that case complainant in this case was

arrested. Now, this complaint is filed.

7. I have perused the complaint lodged by the

complainant. Of-course, as to when the abuse and

assault took place and alleged offence occurred is not

forthcoming. Complaint does not reflect any particular

overt act by particular petitioner. Admittedly, offences

are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

Looking to pendency of earlier civil proceedings and

cases between parties and looking in to the material

placed before the Court, facts and circumstances of the

case, it is evident that petitioners apprehension of arrest

from Police is well founded.

8. It is settled principle of law that bail is a rule

and rejection is an exception. While granting or rejecting

the bail application, the Court will have to take into

consideration,

(1) the nature and seriousness of the offence;

(2) character of the accused;

(3) circumstances which are peculiar to accused;

(4) reasonable probabilities of presence of the accused not being secured at trial;

(5) reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; and

(6) larger interest of public or the state and similar other considerations, which arise when a court is asked to admit the accused to bail in a non-bailable offence.

In the light of these principles the facts and

material placed before the court are considered, then

petitioners have made out prima facie case to grant

pre-arrest bail. The apprehension of the prosecution

can be meted out by imposing reasonable conditions on

the petitioners, as they have undertaken to co-operate

with investigation and abide by conditions. Accordingly, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

Consequently, Petitioner No.1-Somanatha Holede

Matada, Petitioner No.2 Smt.Roopa W/o Somanath

Holede Matada and petitioner No.3-Kum.Rachana Holeda

Matada are ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in

the event of their arrest in connection with Crime

No.05/2022 of Hosapete Rural Police Station, for the

offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 307, 504

r/w Section 34 of IPC on them by executing a personal

bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each with a surety for the like

sum, on the following conditions.

a) The petitioners shall not try to tamper

the prosecution witnesses directly or

indirectly.

b) The petitioners shall appear before the

concerned S.H.O., Police or

Investigating Officer within ten days

from the date of receipt of copy of this

order and co-operate with the

investigation of the case. On completion

of interrogation, the petitioners shall be

released on bail by the SHO or

Investigating Officer of concerned Police

station forthwith on the terms and

conditions mentioned in this order.

c) The petitioners shall not commit similar

offences of which they are accused of or

commission of which they are

suspected.

    d)   The      petitioners    shall     mark     their

         attendance       before    the     S.H.O     of

Hosapete Rural Police Station on every

alternative Sunday between 10.00 a.m.

to 4.00 p.m. for a period of three

months or till filing of charge sheet

whichever is earlier.

e) The petitioners shall furnish proof of

their residential address and shall

inform the Investigating Officer/Court if

there is any change in the address.

Same shall also be furnished.

f) Petitioners shall appear regularly before

the Court whenever directed unless

presence dispensed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Hmb/-