Sri Gurusiddayya Aliyas Muttu S/O … vs State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Karnataka High Court

Sri Gurusiddayya Aliyas Muttu S/O … vs State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2024

Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

                                                    -1-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC-D:4068
                                                           CRL.P No. 100376 of 2024




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                                 BEFORE

                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                               CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100376 OF 2024 (438)
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL
 Digitally signed by
                       BETWEEN:
 ANNAPURNA
 CHINNAPPA
 DANDAGAL
 Date: 2024.02.21
 11:09:32 +0530
                       1.   SRI GURUSIDDAYYA @ MUTTU
                            S/O KALLAYYA JIVANNAVAR,
                            AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: FARMER,
                            R/O. KOTABAGI, TALUK: DHARWAD.

                       2.   SMT VIDYA W/O GURUSIDDAYYA
                            JIVANNAVAR,
                            AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
                            R/O KOTABAGI,
                            TQ. DHARWAD.

                       3.   SRI IRAYYA S/O KALLAYYA JIVANNAVAR,
                            AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: FARMER,
                            R/O KOTABAGI,
                            TQ. DHARWAD.

                       4.   KUM. NIRANJAN S/O IRAYYA JIVANNAVAR,
                            AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
                            R/O KOTABAGI,
                            TQ. DHARWAD.

                       5.   SMT. SUVARNA W/O IRAYYA JIVANNAVAR,
                            AGE 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
                            R/O KOTABAGI,
                            TQ. DHARWAD

                                                                      ...PETITIONERS

                       (BY SRI NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE)
                              -2-
                                     NC: 2024:KHC-D:4068
                                     CRL.P No. 100376 of 2024




AND:

    STATE OF KARNATAKA
    THROUGH GARAG PS
    REP-BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
    HGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
    DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

                                                ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND RELEASE THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1, 3 TO 6 IN THE EVENT OF THEIR
ARREST BY THE GARAG P.S. IN CRIME NO. 13/2024 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 143, 147, 323, 354, 448, 504, 506
R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC.


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


                           ORDER

Accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 in Crime No.13/2024

registered by Garaga Police Station, Dharwad District for

the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323,

354, 448, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian

Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) are before this Court

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
-3-

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4068
CRL.P No. 100376 of 2024

3. FIR in Crime No.13/2024 was registered by

Garaga Police Station, Dharwad, for the aforesaid offence

against petitioners and another juvenile accused based on

the complaint of Smt. Renavva Kammar w/o Kallappa

lodged on 23.01.2024. Apprehending arrest in the said

case, petitioners had filed Crl.Misc.No.40/2024 before the

Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Dharwad, which was rejected on 03.02.2024. Therefore,

they are before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

there is a long standing dispute between two parties, who

are neighbors and in respect of the incident that had taken

place on 23.01.2024, false complaint has been lodged.

Petitioners have no criminal antecedents. Accordingly, he

prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader has opposed the bail petition. She submits that

the victim and the complainant are both senior citizens.

Complainant was assaulted by the petitioners. Accordingly,

she prays to dismiss the petition.

-4-

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4068
CRL.P No. 100376 of 2024

6. From a reading of the complaint dated

23.01.2024 which had resulted in registering FIR in Crime

No.13/2024, it is seen that the petitioners and the

complainant are neighbor’s. It appears that there is a

dispute between the two parties with regard to the

drainage water. On 22.01.2024, when the complainant’s

husband-Kallappa was putting mud on the road, accused

No.1 who came there, started abusing and assaulting

complainant’s husband, accused No.2 who is the son of

accused No.1 also came there along with other accused

and all of them started abusing and assaulting

complainant’s husband. When the complainant allegedly

tried to interfere, the accused persons pulled her saree

and tried to outrage her modesty. Complainant thereafter

ran inside the house. The accused followed her inside her

house and when the complainant raised a cry, the

neighbors came there and rescued her. Thereafter,

complainant and her husband went to the hospital and

subsequently, lodged a complaint on 23.01.2024 at about

18:30 hours.

-5-

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4068
CRL.P No. 100376 of 2024

7. There is an inordinate delay of 18 hours in filing

the complaint. Material on record would go to show that

there is a long standing dispute between the parties.

Admittedly, the complainant or her husband have not

suffered any grievous injury in the incident in question.

The maximum punishment for the alleged offence is

imprisonment for a period of 05 years. Petitioners do not

have any criminal antecedents and they are all members

of a family, who are the neighbours of the complainant

and her family. Under the circumstances, I am of the

opinion that the prayer made by the petitioners for grant

of anticipatory bail is required to be answered in the

affirmative. Accordingly the following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

The petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 are directed to

be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime

No.13/2024 registered by Garag Police Station, Dharwad

district for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4068
CRL.P No. 100376 of 2024

147, 323, 354, 448, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of

IPC, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 shall
execute a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- each with 01 surety each for
the like-sum to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer.

ii. Petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 shall
regularly appear before the Trial Court
without fail unless exempted by the Trial
Court for valid reasons.

iii. Petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 shall not
tamper with the prosecution witnesses
either directly or indirectly.

iv. Petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 shall co-

operate with the Investigating Officer for
the purpose of investigation in the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AC,CKK
CT:GSM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

VISHAL SAINI ADVOCATE