Karnataka High Court
L.M. Sarvamangala vs State By Sanjayanagara P.S on 12 October, 2023
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:37281
CRL.P No. 4736 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4736 OF 2023 (439)
BETWEEN:
L.M.SARVAMANGALA D/O. MAHADEVIAH
AGE: 62,
NO.118, JANHAVI CLUSTERS-F2,
6TH MAIN ROAD, P & T COLONY,
SANJAY NAGAR, NAGASHETTI HALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 094.
...PETITIONER
(SMT. L.M.SARVAMANGALA, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. STATE BY SANJAYANAGARA P.S.
KHAJAAMEEN L
MALAGHAN REPRESENTED BY THE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SUBRAMANI
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
3. B.SHANTHAMMA W/O. SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
4. HARINI S. S/O SUBBARAO
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:37281
CRL.P No. 4736 of 2023
5. SUBBARAO S/O JANAKI RAMANAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT 38, 3RD MAIN,
AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT,
SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 094.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. K.B.K. SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO A) CANCEL THE ORDER GRANTING
BAIL TO RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 / ACCUSED VIDE ORDER
DATED 03.02.2015, PASSED BY THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE IN C.C.NO.24439/2014, B)
DIRECT THE ACCUSED / RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5 BE
ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO CUSTODY AND C) GRANT
SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, PERTAINING TO BENGALURU BENCH,
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 15.09.2023 COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY (AT
KALABURAGI BENCH THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE),
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:37281
CRL.P No. 4736 of 2023
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C.
by the de-facto complainant in Crime No.115/2014 of
Sanjayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, to cancel the
order dated 03.02.2015 granting bail to respondents No.2
to 5/accused Nos.1 to 4, by the VIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, in C.C.No.24439/2014.
02. It is pertinent to mention that the State had
preferred Crl.P.No.3732/2023, seeking cancellation of bail
granted to the accused persons. The said petition was
dismissed by this Court on 22.05.2023. After dismissal of
the said petition, the present petition is filed. However, to
give an opportunity to the petitioner/complainant, notice
was issued to the accused in this case.
03. Heard the petitioner/party in person, the
learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, the
learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.1 to 4 and
perused the material on record.
NC: 2023:KHC:37281
CRL.P No. 4736 of 2023
04. Crime No.115/2014 of Sanjayanagar Police
Station, was registered against accused Nos.1 and others
for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504 and
323 of IPC, on a complaint lodged by the petitioner
alleging that at about 10.00 p.m. on 03.05.2014, the said
accused have abused and assaulted her etc.,
05. Charge-sheet was submitted against accused
Nos.1 to 4 and the case was registered as
C.C.No.24439/2014, on the file of the Court of VIII
Additional CMM, Bengaluru. Summons were issued to the
accused. On their appearance, the learned Magistrate
enlarged them on bail accepting the surety offered, by an
order dated 03.02.2015.
06. An application under Section 437 (5) of Cr.P.C.
was filed for cancellation of bail granted to accused Nos.1
to 4, on the ground that the accused have tried to tamper
with one of the witnesses, by name Sri. Sunil Joshi -
CW.3 and thus they have violated the bail condition by
NC: 2023:KHC:37281
CRL.P No. 4736 of 2023
threatening the said witness. The learned Magistrate
dismissed the application filed by the prosecution as well
as the complainant/CW.1, by an order dated 30.11.2020.
07. A petition was preferred under Section 439 (2)
of Cr.P.C. on the file of the Court of XLV Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, in
Crl.Mis.No.1520/2021 praying to set-aside the order
dated 30.11.2020 passed by the learned Magistrate and
to allow the application filed by the prosecution as well as
CW.1 under Section 437 (5) of Cr.P.C. The said petition
came to be dismissed by an order dated 10.01.2023.
08. The main contention of the petitioner/party in
person is that, when the trial was being proceeded, the
accused went to the residence of CW.3, where he lives
with his family, twice on the same day i.e., on 28.12.2016
asking questions and enquiring about the case, with an
attempt to create fear in the mind of CW.3 and his family
members. It is contended that in this regard CW.3 has
lodged a written complaint on the same day to the
NC: 2023:KHC:37281
CRL.P No. 4736 of 2023
Sanjayanagar Police. The petitioner/party in person would
contend that the Police have filed a report dated
20.07.2018, which confirms the threat given to the
witness and without taking into consideration all these
aspects, the impugned order was passed, rejecting the
prayer seeking cancellation of bail.
09. The learned counsel appearing for accused
Nos.1 to 4/respondents No.2 to 5, on the other hand has
vehemently contended that the entire allegations are false
and it is a created story, to harass the accused. He
contends that the allegation that CW.3 was threatened
has not been spoken by himself when he was examined
before the Trial Court and therefore, both the Courts have
rightly rejected the application seeking cancellation of
bail. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the
reasons assigned by the Courts below for dismissing the
applications. He has therefore, sought to dismiss the
petition.
NC: 2023:KHC:37281
CRL.P No. 4736 of 2023
10. The charge-sheet was filed against accused
Nos.1 to 4 in connection with Crime No.115/2014 of
Sanjayanagar Police Station, for the offence punishable
under Sections 354, 341, 323, 427 and 504 read with
Section 34 of IPC. A perusal of the order sheet reveal that
the accused were on station bail and subsequent to the
filing of the charge-sheet and pursuant to the issuance of
summons, they appeared before the Trial Court and by an
order dated 03.02.2015 they were enlarged on bail. The
cancellation of bail was sought on the ground that the
accused attempted to tamper one of the witness-CW.3 on
28.12.2016 by visiting his house. On 29.12.2016, a
written complaint was lodged to the police requesting to
take action for tampering the said witness-CW.3. It is the
contention of the petitioner that the police have submitted
a report which confirm the accused threatening the
witness and thereby attempting to tampering the
evidence.
NC: 2023:KHC:37281
CRL.P No. 4736 of 2023
11. The learned Magistrate initially kept the
application filed by the complainant under Section 437 (5)
of Cr.P.C., pending for the reason that the said application
was not supported by any sworn affidavit of CW.3 and
therefore it is necessary to hear him and also that the
prosecution has not moved the application. The
application was kept pending till the examination of CW.3,
since the case was at the stage of evidence. It was
further observed that according to CW.1, CW.3 has
already given a complaint to the police and if the
Investigating Officer finds any truth in it, the prosecution
is at liberty to file an application seeking cancellation of
bail. It is no doubt true that the police filed a report and
subsequently the prosecution has also filed an application
seeking cancellation of bail. However, what is relevant to
be seen is that CW.3 who was examined in chief on
27.03.2019 and cross-examined on 20.12.2019,
supported the case of the prosecution, but not complained
of any threat given by the accused. The same is taken
into consideration by the learned Magistrate. It is rightly
NC: 2023:KHC:37281
CRL.P No. 4736 of 2023
observed that CW.3 is the best person to say if the
accused had actually threatened him or not and if really
CW.3 was threatened by the accused, he would have
reported the said allegation of threat before the Court.
Further, the Trial Court has rightly observed that if the
accused attempt to tamper with the evidence or threatens
witnesses not to support the case of prosecution, bail can
be cancelled, but the liberty granted to the accused
cannot be cancelled in a casual or routine manner. The
yardstick for considering the application seeking
cancellation of bail is much more higher than yardstick for
grant of bail.
12. The learned Sessions Judge while dismissing
the petition filed under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. by its
order dated 10.01.2023 has taken into consideration all
the aspects of the case and also relied on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1995) 1 SCC
349 in the case of Dolatram and others vs. State of
Haryana.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37281
CRL.P No. 4736 of 2023
13. Having perused the impugned orders rejecting
the applications seeking cancellation of bail, this Court
finds that the reasons assigned are in accordance with
law. No grounds are made out to set aside the impugned
orders and cancel the order granting bail to respondents
No.2 to 4/accused Nos.1 to 4. However, it is made clear
that the accused shall adhere to the conditions imposed
while they are enlarged on bail and shall not violate any of
the conditions.
14. With the above observations, the petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KJJ
