Karnataka High Court
Smt. Anasuya W/O. Kubendra Sopin vs Shri Mahantesh Rudrappa Sopin on 2 June, 2023
Bench: V.Srishanandapresided Byvsnj
-1-
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100625 OF 2023
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100626 OF 2023
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100625/2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANASUYA W/O. KUBENDRA SOPIN,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KHODANPUR, TAL: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. RUDRAPPA BHIMARAYAPPA SOPIN,
CHANDRASHEKAR AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI R/O: KHODANPUR, TAL: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI- 591115.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Date: 2023.06.07 2. SHRI. SIDDARODH DODDAPPA KURI,
11:17:15 -0700
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KHODANPUR, TAL: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI- 591115.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD,
THROUGH DODDAWAD POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI- 580002.
-2-
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R2;
SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R3)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 (2) OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CANCEL REGULAR BAIL GRANTED TO
RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2/ACCUSED NO. 6 AND 7 BY THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE-BELAGAVI IN CRL.MISC NO. 165/2023
IN GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE RESPONDENTS
NO.1 AND 2 FOR O/P/U/SEC. 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324,
307, 506 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC, THE PETITIONER HEREIN IS
BEFORE THIS HON BLE COURT BY WAY OF THIS PETITION.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100626/2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANASUYA W/O. KUBENDRA SOPIN,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KHODANPUR, TAL: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI- 591117.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. MAHANTESH RUDRAPPA SOPIN,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KHODANPUR, TAL: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI- 591117.
2. SHRI. VIVEKANAND MAHANTESH SOPIN,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KHODANPUR, TAL: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI- 591117.
3. SHRI. MALLIKARJUN MAHANTESH SOPIN,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
BAILHONGAL VIDYA VARDHAK SANGHA
DEGREE COLLEGE,
R/O: KHODANPUR, TAL: KITTUR,
-3-
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
DIST- BELAGAVI- 591117.
4. SHRI. NAGABUSHAN MAHANTESH SOPIN,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
BAPUJI INDEPENDENT P.U. COLLEGE
BAILHONGAL DEGREE COLLEGE,
R/O: KHODANPUR, TAL: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI- 591117.
5. SHRI. SHIVAKUMAR @KUMAR BASAVARAJ
@HAWALDAR, AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGE,
KITTUR, R/O: HIRENANDIHALLI,
NOW AT KHODANPUR,
TAL: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI- 591117.
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD,
THROUGH DODDAWAD POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI- 591117.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5;
SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R6)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 (2) OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CANCEL REGULAR BAIL GRANTED TO
ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 5 RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 BY THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE-BELAGAVI IN CRL.MISC NO. 166/2023
IN GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE RESPONDENTS
NO.1 TO 5 FOR O/P/U/SEC. 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324,
307, 506 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC, THE PETITIONER HEREIN IS
BEFORE THIS HON BLE COURT BY WAY OF THIS PETITION TO
CANCEL THE REGULAR BAIL GRANTED TO RESPONDENTS.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
ORDER
Heard Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel Sri. R.H.Angadi for
respondent Nos.1 to 7 and learned High Court
Government Pleader Smt.Girija S. Hiremath for the
respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The present petitions are filed under
Section 439(2)of Cr.P.C with the following prayers:-
In Crl.P.No.100625/2023
"To cancel regular bail granted to
respondent Nos.1 to 7/accused Nos.6 and
7 by the judgment and order passed by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge-
Belagavi in Criminal Misc. No.165/2023 in
granting anticipatory bail to the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323,
324, 307, 506 r/w Section 149 of Indian
Penal Code ."
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
In Crl.P.No.100625/2023
" To cancel regular bail granted to
respondents/accused Nos.1 to 5 by the
judgment and order passed by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge-
Belagavi in Criminal Misc.No.166/2023 in
granting bail to the respondents Nos.1 to
5 for offences under Sections 143, 147,
148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 506 r/w section
149 of Indian Penal Code."
3. The brief facts of the cases are as under :-
A complaint came to be lodged stating that
respondent Nos.1 to 7 and others have assaulted the
petitioner on 27/01/2023. On the basis of the
complaint lodged by the petitioner, a case came to
be registered in Crime No.12/2023 by Dodawada
Police Station, Belagavi District. After registering the
case, the investigation agency as a part of its
investigation arrested respondents herein and others
on 30.01.2023. A bail application came to be filed
before the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
Belagavi. Said bail application was contested by the
prosecution and after considering all objections of
the prosecution, the bail application was filed on
04.02.2023. The said bail application was contested
and taking note of the objections of the prosecution
and the gravity of the offences alleged against the
accused persons, learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge by order dated 15.02.2023 granted
bail to the respondent Nos.1 to 7.
4. Being aggrieved by the grant of bail,
defacto complainant Smt.Anasuya has filed the
present petition on the following grounds:
1. It is submitted that the judgment and order passed by
the Principal District and Sessions Judge-Belagavi in
Criminal Misc No 165/2023 in granting anticipatory bail to
the respondents no 1 and 2 is erroneous, against the law
and contrary to the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. The petitioner submits that due to family enmity and
also as there is a suit filed for partition and separate
possession by the husband of the petitioner, and in order
to pressure the petitioner to withdraw the suit filed by her
husband, the respondents have threatened and assaulted
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
the petitioner with deadly weapons due to which the
petitioner is admitted in Vijay Ortho and Trauma Center
Belagavi, and is fitting for her life due to the criminal
activities of the respondents no 1 and 2. Hence for the
very said reason the bail granted needs to be cancelled.
3. The Learned Session Judge erred in holding that the
petitioner /accused have filed complaint but no such
complaint is filed and further respondent No 1 to 5/other
accused are indulged in such illegal activities and there
are criminal case No. 1417/2021 against accused.
4. The petitioner submits that act of the
respondents/accused is very heinous and danger act and
is against the society and still the petitioner/victim is
under treatment and the petitioner is operated for more
than 5 time.
5. The petitioner submits that the respondents no 1 and 2
are very rich and influential persons have many prior
criminal antecedents. There are sufficient materials
showing involvement of the respondent no 1 and 2 in the
offences committed. The I.0 has seized sufficient
materials/ objects at the instance of respondent no 1 and
2 which show their involvement in the said crime. The
offences committed are serious in nature and hence for
the said reasons the bail granted needs to be cancelled
6. The petitioner submits that since the respondent no 1
and 2 are very influential people there is every possibility,
they will tamper with the prosecution evidence and also,
they might further threaten and assault the family
members of the petitioner as there is a suit pending for
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
partition and separate possession. If the said bail granted
is not cancelled there will be grave injustice caused to the
petitioners and her family.
7. The petitioner submits that the investigation is yet to
be completed and the police are yet to filed the charge
sheet. In such circumstances the respondent no 1 and 2
being very powerful and influential people, there is every
chance that they will tamper with the evidence and also
likely to bribe official to escape punishment. If the said
bail granted is not cancelled there will be grave injustice
caused to the petitioners and her family.
8. It is submitted that as per the decision of this
Honorable Court in Manikantan v. State of Karnataka
reported in 2018 SCC Online Kar 1822, wherein a clear
observation is made that antecedents of the accused must
be considered at the time of bail and the same is liable to
be rejected, if the accused is found to be a habitual
offender. Herein, the respondent no 1 and 2 are habitual
offenders and looking at the horrendous act committed by
them on the petitioner, the bail granted is liable to be
cancelled as per the decision of this Honorable Court.
9. It is submitted that The Apex Court also in the similar
circumstances in the case of Chandrakeshwar Prasad
v. State of Bihar and Anr. in Criminal Appeal
No.932/2016 and State of Bihar v. Md.Shahabuddin
in Criminal Appeal No.933/2016 decided on 30.09.2016,
reported in (2016) 9 SCC 443 held that the suppression
of material facts before the Court regarding the several
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
criminal antecedents of the accused while obtaining the
order of ball makes the aforesaid order vitiated.
10. The petitioner submits that due to the criminal
activities of the respondent no 1 and 2 which are inhuman
and horrendous, the petitioner has sustained grievous
injuries and is fitting for her life in hospital. The
respondent no 1 and 2 have assaulted the petitioner on
her head and on other parts of the body which are
grievous in nature. The horrendous photographs of the
criminal acts committed by the respondent no 1 and 2 on
the petitioner and also that the petitioner is taking
treatment for such acts in Vijaya Ortho and Trauma
Center Belagavi.
11. It is submitted that if the bail granted to respondent
no 1 and 2 are not cancelled there is every chance that
they might commit the same offence upon the other
family members of the petitioner. It is submitted that the
petitioner has a daughter and there is every threat to her
life as can be seen by the acts committed on the
petitioner by the respondent no 1 and 2. If the said bail
granted is not cancelled there will be grave injustice
caused to the petitioners and her family.
12. It is submitted that there are incriminating materials
against the respondent no 1 and 2 and also there are
materials/objects recovered at the instance of respondent
no 1 and 2 and looking at the inhuman and horrendous
acts committed by respondent no 1 and 2 their bail
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
granted is liable to be cancelled and they should be
immediately taken into police custody.
13. It is submitted that the said offences committed by
respondents No.1 and 2 are no bailable in nature. Hence,
granting bail is bad in the eyes of law and the said needs
to be cancelled in the interest of justice.
14. The petitioner submits that without prejudice the
above grounds urged seek the leave of this Hon'ble Court
to urge any other additional grounds other than urged in
the memorandum of petition
5. Reiterating the grounds urged in the
petition, learned counsel Sri.Vittal S. Teli for the
defacto complainant vehemently contended that
while approaching the District Court for grant of
bail, accused/respondents have suppressed the
material facts and obtained an order of grant of bail
and therefore, this Court has got ample power to
cancel the bail and direct for the re-arrest of the
respondents/accused.
6. He also relied upon the Principal of law
enunciated in the case of Manikantan V. State of
Karnataka reported in 2018 SCC Online KAR 1822
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
and Chandrakeshwar Prasad V. State of Bihar
and another in Crl.A.No.932/2016 and State of
Bihar Vs.Md.Shahabuddin in Criminal Appeal
No.933/2016 and emphasise that if there is a
suppression of material facts by accused in obtaining
order of grant of bail. As such grant of bail can be
re-considered by the Court and order for cancellation
of bail.
7. He further submits that there were other
criminal cases against the accused persons were
pending which was not brought to the notice of the
trial Court and trial Court has considered the present
incident as isolated incident and granted bail. Hence,
sought to cancel the bail granted.
8. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.R.H.Angadi
representing the accused persons in both the
petitions contended that bail is granted by learned
Principal District Judge as a discretionary order and
the same was granted after contest.
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
9. He also emphasised that in the earlier
cases also the petitioners were falsely implicated
and therefore Court taking note of the merits of the
matter granted bail and there is no complaint by the
prosecution in this case or in the earlier cases, the
petitioners herein have not violated any of the
conditions imposed at the time of granting bail and
therefore, the petition needs to be dismissed.
10. He further emphasized that this Court
while considering the request of defacto complainant
for cancellation of the bail cannot act as an
appellate authority over the Court which granted
the bail; more so having regard to the fact that
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. both District Court and
High Court have got concurrent power to entertain
the bail request in non-bailable offences.
11. Learned High Court Government Pleader
Smt.Girija Hirematt contended that the bail
application of the respondents was objected by the
prosecution in accordance with law and the material
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
collected by the investigation agency was part of
objection statement and learned Principal District
Judge after considering the rival contentions of the
parties and after considering the gravity of the
offence alleged against the respondents herein
passed an order of grant of bail with conditions and
there is no complaint that any of the conditions of
the bail have been violated. Accordingly, sought for
passing suitable orders.
12. In view of the rival contentions of the
parties, this Court perused the material on record
meticulously.
13. On such perusal of material on record, it is
seen that respondents have been accused of the
offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,
341, 323, 324, 307, 506 r/w section 149 of Indian
Penal Code.
14. The respondents were arrested on
30.01.2023. Later on, they were enlarged on bail by
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
order dated 15.02.2023 after contest. The learned
Principal District Judge has taken into consideration
the nature of injury caused to the victim
complainant in the incident and also taking note of
relevant records to grant bail by using his
discretionary power under Sections 438 and 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code granted bail to few
accused persons with conditions. The conditions
imposed in the bail are as under:
1. They shall appear befo re the investigation
officer wi thin a w eek f rom today.
2. They shall mak e themselves available for
the interrogation by the investigation
officer as and when required.
3. They shall no t tamper or attempt to tamer
with the pros ecuti on witnesse s.
4. They shall not involve in any similar
offences.
15. Admittedly, there is no complaint that any
one of these conditions are violated.
- 15 -
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
16. The investigating agency is proceeding
with the investigation and according to the learned
HCGP the respondents/accused have co-operated
with the investigation agency. The only ground on
which the said bail order is sought to be quashed is
that the respondents herein have suppressed the
pendency of the previous criminal cases pending as
against them.
17. It is the argument of the learned counsel
Sri.Vittal S. Teli that if the pending criminal cases
had been brought to the notice of the learned Prl.
District Judge, there would have been possibility of
rejection of bail petition and suppression of
pendency of earlier criminal cases goes to the very
root of the matter in exercising the discretionary
power vested with the learned Principal District
Judge and sought for cancellation of bail.
18. As could be seen from the material
available on record and averments made on behalf of
the accused by learned Counsel Sri.R.H.Angadi, fact
- 16 -
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
remains that earlier criminal cases were not brought
to the knowledge of the learned Principal District
Judge while granting anticipatory bail and regular
bail to the accused/respondents. However, it is also
to be noted that prosecution also did not brought it
to the notice of learned Principal District Judge
about the pendency of the criminal cases.
19. Learned counsel Sri.R.H.Angadi contended
that respondents/accused were falsely implicated in
the earlier criminal cases and they also been granted
bail in the earlier criminal cases and there is no
complaint that they have violated any conditions
imposed in the bail order in respect of earlier
criminal cases. He further argued that mere
pendency of few criminal cases would not be a bar
for a learned Principal District Judge to exercise his
discretionary power in respect of a subsequent
crime.
20. This Court finds sufficient force in the said
argument. If a person seeks for cancellation of bail
- 17 -
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
on the ground of suppression of facts, there must
also be a violation of the conditions of bail imposed
has taken place. In the case on hand, it is not so.
From the grounds referred supra, there is no
complaint that respondents have violated any of the
conditions nor it is the complaint of the defacto
complainant that respondents have threatened the
complainant and there is no life threat to her.
21. Learned counsel Sri.R.H.Angadi, at this
stage submits that respondents have not threatened
the complainant at all and they are not going to
threaten the complainant in future and they would
follow the conditions in accordance with law. If any
such contingency arises, the petitioner is having
liberty to approach the Court with fresh request for
cancellation of bail if really she is the sufferer. His
submission is placed on record.
22. There cannot be any dispute as to the
principles of law enunciated in the decisions relied
on behalf of the petitioner referred supra. However,
- 18 -
CRL.P No. 100625 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 100626 of 2023
facts in those cases are totally different from the
facts involved in the present case and complaint
made against the accused persons. As such, those
decisions are not of much avail for the petitioner in
this case to seek cancellation of the bail.
23. With the above discussion, this Court is of
the opinion that this case is not a fit case where this
Court is required to exercise it's discretionary power
in canceling the bail granted to the respondents.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
The petitions are rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HMB
