Karnataka High Court
Mr. Murali B S vs State Of Karnataka on 21 August, 2023
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:29732
CRL.P No. 12569 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12569 OF 2022 (439)
Between:
Mr. Murali B.S.
S/o M. Shankaregowda
Aged about 26 years
R/o Bachahalli Village
Antharahalli Post
Thoobagere Hobli
Doddaballapur Taluk
Bangalore Rural District-561 203.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Hashmath Pasha, Senior Counsel for
Sri Kariappa N.A., Advocate)
AND:
Digitally signed by
1. State of Karnataka by
SWETA KULKARNI
Location: HIGH Doddaballapur Rural Police Station
COURT OF
KARNATAKA Doddaballapura-561 203.
(represented by learned
State Public Prosecutor)
2. Mr. M.V. Rajanna
S/o Late Veeranna
Aged about 63 years
R/at No.24, 1st Cross
Govindaraju Layout
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:29732
CRL.P No. 12569 of 2022
Nagashettihalli,
RMV II Stage
BANGALORE-560 094.
... Respondents
(By Sri R.D. Renukaradhya, HCGP for R1;
Sri Vivek Reddy, Senior Counsel for
Sri K.N. Subba Reddy, Advocate for R2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 (2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside and cancel the
bail order dated 17.11.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.10211/2022
on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Doddaballapura, for the offence under Section 306 of IPC,
which is arising out of Crime No.268/2022 of Doddaballapur
Rural Police and consequently direct the first respondent police
to arrest the respondent No.2 and commit him to prison, in the
ends of justice.
This petition having been heard and reserved on
06.07.2023, coming on for pronouncement of order this day
(at Kalaburagi Bench through Video Conference), the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The de facto complainant in Crime No.268/2022 of
Doddaballapura Rural Police Station, Bengaluru Rural
district has preferred this petition under Section 439 (2) of
Cr.P.C. to set aside and cancel the order dated 17.11.2022
passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Doddaballapura, in Crl.Misc.No.10211/2022 granting bail
NC: 2023:KHC:29732
CRL.P No. 12569 of 2022
to respondent No.2 and consequently to direct the police
to arrest him and commit to prison.
2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner and respondent No.2 and the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
State. Perused the material on record.
3. The brief facts of the case as averred in the
petition are that the complainant's father deceased M.
Shankaregowda and his elder brother Thotadappa are the
owners of land bearing Sy.No.53/5 to an extent of 2 acres,
situated in Bachahalli village, Tubagere Hobli,
Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. About 25
years back, deceased Shankaregowda was intending to
avail loan from the bank. At that time, his distant relative
one Jayarame Gowda i.e., father-in-law of respondent
No.2, promised him to give loan provided he gives security
of his land. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was advanced as loan
by fraudulently taking his signature on a stamp paper and
thereafter registered the land in his name. The loan
NC: 2023:KHC:29732
CRL.P No. 12569 of 2022
amount with interest was rounded off to Rs.60,000/- and a
sum of Rs.40,000/- was cleared, for which an agreement
was executed by Jayarame Gowda stating that on
repayment of balance amount of Rs.20,000/-, a resale
deed will be executed and to this effect agreement was
executed, drafted by respondent No.2. Thereafter, the
entire balance amount was paid with interest to Jayarame
Gowda, but the land was not registered in their name as
agreed. Further, respondent No.2 and his father-in-law
Jayarame Gowda colluded with the police and trespassed
into the land and thrown out Shankaregowda and
Thotadappa from their farm house and land and also got
registered a false FIR against deceased Shankaregowda
and others in Crime No.189/2016 for the offence
punishable under Sections 427, 506, 504, 447 read with
Section 34 of IPC and got arrested them and later they
were released on bail by an order dated 15.05.2017. In
the said case, charge sheet was filed against
Shankaregowda, Thotadappa and their sisters.
NC: 2023:KHC:29732
CRL.P No. 12569 of 2022
4. The petitioner being one of the rightful owners
of the land, filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.404/2015 on
the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge at
Doddaballapura. Jayarame Gowda was one of the
defendants in the said suit. To deprive the petitioner from
the rightful ownership of the landed property, Jayarame
Gowda executed a gift deed in the name of his two grand
children, who are none other than the children of
respondent No.2 and on the strength of the said gift deed,
they got impleaded as defendants in the suit.
5. The respondent No.2 herein started torturing
Shankaregowda posing threat to his life through certain
persons. Due to his continuous torture and because of his
fraudulent and mischievous act tending to deprive of his
landed property, Shankaregowda went to the very same
land and committed suicide by consuming insecticide.
Therefore, Crime No.268/2022 in Doddaballapura Rural
Police Station was registered against respondent
NC: 2023:KHC:29732
CRL.P No. 12569 of 2022
No.2/accused for an offence punishable under Section 306
of IPC.
6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of
granting bail to respondent No.2 by the learned Sessions
Judge has preferred this petition.
7. The contentions raised by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner are that, there is a
prima facie case made out against respondent No.2 for the
offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and the
investigation was at the inception and therefore, the
learned Sessions Judge was not proper in grating bail. It
is vehemently contended that the usual procedure for
considering the bail petition was not followed and initially
an interim bail was granted in a mechanical manner
without assigning any reasons and on the strength of the
said interim bail, final order was passed grating bail to
respondent No.2.
NC: 2023:KHC:29732
CRL.P No. 12569 of 2022
8. The learned Senior Counsel contended that
respondent No.2 and the police have colluded with each
other and at the same time, the learned Sessions Judge
failed to protect the interest of the victims without taking
into consideration that respondent No.2 is capable of
interfering in the investigation. He would further contend
that without suffering detention, respondent No.2 has put
continuous threat to the life of petitioner and his family
and therefore, they are apprehending grave risk to their
life.
9. The learned Senior Counsel has also contended
that a death note has been recovered and hence, it is clear
that on account of the ill-treatment and abetment by
respondent No.2, Shankaregowda has taken the extreme
step and therefore, the ingredients of the offence are
made out.
10. The learned Senior Counsel has relied on a
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Puran vs. Rambilas
and another reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338 to contend
NC: 2023:KHC:29732
CRL.P No. 12569 of 2022
that if a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous
crime, ignoring material and evidence on record, such an
order would be against principles of law and interest of
justice would require that such a perverse order be set
aside and bail be cancelled.
11. It is also contended that where a person
concerned is accused of an offence which is punishable
with imprisonment for life, notice has to be given to the
Public Prosecutor unless it is not practicable, then reasons
to be recorded in writing. In support of the said
contention, he relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Gulabrao Baburao Deokar vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in (2013) 16 SCC 190.
Hence, it is contended that the order passed is in breach
of the mandatory requirements and therefore, it is liable to
be set aside.
12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 has denied all the allegations. He has
filed a memo along with the documents pertaining to the
NC: 2023:KHC:29732
CRL.P No. 12569 of 2022
sale transactions as well as the copies of the
judgment/orders passed by the Civil Court in respect of
the land in question, and contended that though the sale
deed was executed in favour of Jayarame Gowda by
petitioner's father and they suffered orders in the Civil
Court, on the one pretext or the other, the petitioner and
his family were trying to prevent the rightful ownership of
father-in-law of respondent No.2, of the land and as per
the order of the Civil Court, they had to be evicted and
even the criminal case was also registered against them
for trespassing into the property. He contends that there
is no any high handedness by the police as alleged. He
contends that the allegations against respondent No.2 of
either abetting or instigating the commission of suicide is
nothing but an act of vengeance and even the death note
alleged to have been left behind by the deceased is
concocted. He contends that the learned Sessions Judge,
considering the facts and circumstances, has enlarged
respondent No.2 on bail and all the conditions imposed in
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29732
CRL.P No. 12569 of 2022
the bail order have been complied and there is no violation
of any condition.
13. The learned Senior counsel would also submit
that a Co-ordinate Bench has stalled the further
investigation in Crime No.268/2022, pending on the file of
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura initiated
against the respondent No.2, till the disposal of the said
petition. He has furnished a certified copy of the order
passed in Criminal Petition No.4514/2023 dated
13.07.2023 filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He
contends that considering the law laid down in Kanchan
Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2021 SCC
Online SC 737, this Court was pleased to grant stay of the
further proceedings. He therefore seeks to dismiss the
petition.
14. This Court has anxiously considered the rival
submissions. The short question is as to whether the
order passed by the learned Sessions Judge granting bail
to respondent No.2 in Crime No.268/2022 of
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29732
CRL.P No. 12569 of 2022
Doddaballapura Rural Police Station, registered for an
offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is liable to be
set aside or not.
15. It is not necessary to go deep into the civil
dispute existing between the parties as that is not the
scope of this petition. But the fact remains that both the
parties are entangled with disputes in respect of the land
in question, which was registered in favour of father-in-law
of respondent No.2. The complainant has claimed that by
a fraudulent act the land was got registered by the father-
in-law of respondent No.2, one Jayarame Gowda and
subsequently his family was forcibly evicted from the
residential house, etc. The allegations are that due to
continuous threat and torture by respondent No.2,
petitioner's father by name Shankaregowda committed
suicide and therefore, the ingredients of the offence
alleged against him are made out. Secondly the petitioner
is aggrieved by the procedure followed in granting bail to
respondent No.2.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29732
CRL.P No. 12569 of 2022
16. The material on record reveal that respondent
No.2 initially preferred a petition under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., but he was arrested on 04.11.2022 and produced
before the learned Magistrate. Hence, he preferred a
petition for bail in Crl.Misc.No.10211/2022 and interim bail
was sought. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to
grant him the interim relief on certain conditions and
thereafter, by a detailed order dated 17.11.2022 allowed
the main petition releasing the respondent No.2 on bail
imposing conditions. There is no illegality committed by
the learned Sessions Judge in disposing of the bail
petition. It cannot be said that the discretion was not
exercised judiciously and the order was passed in violation
of any norms prescribed for consideration of a bail
petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that
power to grant regular bail includes the power to grant
interim bail. A Court hearing a regular bail application has
got inherent power to grant interim bail pending disposal
of the regular bail application, to protect the life and
liberty of every person, if prima facie if appears, he is
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29732
CRL.P No. 12569 of 2022
innocent. At that time, there would be no justification in
entering into a roving enquiry. A person should not be
compelled to go to jail and bail cannot be withheld merely
as a punishment.
17. The petitioner's counsel has relied on the death
note alleged to have been left behind by the deceased.
The signature in the said death note has been seriously
disputed by the learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2. This Court is not required to conduct a mini trial at
this stage. Admittedly, the parties are at loggerheads
hence, allegations and counter allegations are made
against each other.
18. A perusal of the order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge granting bail to respondent No.2 cannot be
said to be whimsical, capricious or perverse in the facts
and circumstances of the case. It is well settled that bail
once granted should not be cancelled unless cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are made out for an order
directing cancellation of bail which was already granted.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29732
CRL.P No. 12569 of 2022
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dolatram and others vs. State
of Harayana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 has illustrated
the factors which may be considered which are thus: (i)
interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of
administration of justice, (ii) evasion or attempt to evade
the due course of justice, (iii) abuse of the concession
granted to the accused in any manner, (iv) possibility of
the accused absconding (v) likelihood of misuse of bail
(vi) likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence
or threatening witnesses.
19. Mere allegations that the accused is influential
or is capable of tampering the witnesses itself is not a
ground to interfere with an order granting bail, unless the
allegations are substantiated that after the grant of bail
accused has indulged in interfering with the due course of
administration of justice and misused the liberty granted
to him etc. Cancellation of bail can be justified when there
are supervening circumstances after the grant of bail.
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29732
CRL.P No. 12569 of 2022
20. It is not in dispute that the criminal proceedings
initiated against respondent No.2 has been stayed in
Crl.P.No.4514/2013. This petition seeking cancellation of
bail having been independently heard and considered, this
Court is of the view that no cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are made out to set aside the order passed
by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SWK
