Mahabaleshwar Ganapati Bhat vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 5250 Kant

                             1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI


             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100633/2022


BETWEEN:

MAHABALESHWAR GANAPATI BHAT
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST
R/O. HOSATOTA IN BELAKHAND VILLAGE,
PO. NANDOLLI, TQ. YELLAPUR
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581359

                                                 ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI A P HEGDE, ADVOCATE.)


AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YELLAPUR POLICE STATION
YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD-580011

                                             ...RESPONDENT.

(BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP.)


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, SEEKING TO ALLOW
THIS    PETITION   AND    GRANT     THE   BAIL   TO    THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN YELLAPUR POLICE STATION CRIME
NO.0034/2022, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
                                2




YELLAPUR, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 395, 307, 504 OF IPC, ETC.,.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:


                             ORDER

This petition is filed under section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to enlarge the

petitioner/accused no.1, on regular bail, in Crime

No.34/2022 of Yellapur Police Station, registered for the

offences punishable under sections 395, 307, 504 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC', for short), pending on the

file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Yellapur.

2. It is alleged by one Suresh Ganapati Revanakar

that on 11.2.2022 at 8.00 p.m. he came from his office in

his Innova Car and got down in front of his house gate. At

that time some unknown persons came near the car and

asked for the liquor shop. Then suddenly two persons

caught hold his hand and one person closed his mouth with

hands and another person started pressing his neck and

other person abused and assaulted him asking for money

and mobile phone. One of them snatched the mobile and

when he shouted, his servants came there and these

persons ran away from the place. Accordingly he lodged

the complaint before the police on the basis of which FIR

came to be registered.

3. Heard Shri A.P.Hegde, the learned counsel for

the petitioner and Smt.Girija Hiremath, the learned HCGP

for the respondent State and perused the material placed

on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued

that this petitioner who is accused no.1 is a power of

attorney holder in Execution Petition No.135/2016 filed

against the complainant for recovery of arbitration award

of Rs.4,85,51,586/- and now the case is transferred and

pending. In that regard just to harass and to make

unlawful gain the complainant has lodged this complaint. It

is also argued that arrest warrant is also issued against the

present complainant in the said execution. It is contended

by the learned counsel that the alleged offences are not

punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Only on the

say of accused nos.3 to 8, the name of this petitioner is

included and he was arrested. According to the remand

application filed by the police, two motorcycles, one car,

complainant's mobile phone, mobile phones of accused and

consent letter are recovered. This petitioner is no way

connected with the complaint. The FIR was lodged against

unknown 5-6 persons. The complainant being rich and

influential person, has got arrested this person and some

other persons. Therefore, he argued to allow the petition.

5. Against this, the learned HCGP argued that the

offence is severe one. There is an attempt of taking the life

of complainant. It is also stated by accused no.3 to 8 that

petitioner gave supari to them and there is an attempt to

take life of complainant. Still the investigation is going on.

If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may threaten the

complainant and he may abscond. There is prima facie

material against him. Hence argued to reject the bail

petition.

6. I have perused the petition averments, FIR and

other material placed on record. Admittedly FIR is

registered against unknown persons. As stated by the

counsel for the petitioner, on the complaint and FIR, the

Magistrate's endorsement is dated 11.2.2022 and the

complaint is registered on 12.2.2022. Of course in the

remand application also arrest of accused nos.2 to 8 is

shown as 13.1.2022. So it appears the investigating officer

is not serious in conducting the investigation and is very

casual without correcting the dates he has filed documents

before the Court. Be that as it may, it is alleged that some

5-6 unknown persons tried to assault the complainant and

take away his life. Now the police have arrested totally 8

persons. It is also alleged that accused nos.3 to 8 have

stated during enquiry the name of this petitioner and

another accused. It is also evident from the remand

application that motorcycle, car and mobile phones are

recovered. The petitioner is in judicial custody since

13.1.2022. Admittedly no injury is sustained by the

complainant and according to him, the incident took place

in front of his house and his servants were also present

there.

7. 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.

8. Therefore, in the light of these principles,

taking into consideration the petition averments and

material placed on record, Execution is filed by M/s.Shree

Shipping Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director,

who has given power of attorney to this petitioner, wherein

this complainant is shown as judgment debtor and in view

of the facts and circumstances of the case, in my

considered view the petitioner has made out sufficient

ground to allow the petition.

9. The apprehension of the prosecution can be

meted out by imposing reasonable conditions on the

petitioner, as he has undertaken to abide by the conditions

that may be imposed by the Court. Accordingly, I proceed

to pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition filed under section 439 of

Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner/accused no.1 in Crime

No.34/2022 of Yellapur Police Station, registered for the

offences punishable under sections 395, 307, 504 of IPC,

pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Yellapur, shall

be released on bail, subject to the following conditions.

i) The petitioner shall execute a self bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

ii) The petitioner shall not try to tamper and threaten the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

iii) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional Police/SHO once in 15 days, i.e., on alternative Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. for a period of three months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier and shall co-operate in the investigation.

iv) The petitioner shall furnish proof of his residential correct address and shall inform the Court/Investigating Officer if there is any change in the address.

v) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer for investigation of this case.

vi) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities and shall not commit similar offences.

vii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court.

In case if any of the condition is violated, the

prosecution is at liberty to move application for

cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE Mrk/-