Annappa Shivappa Halijole vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by petitioner-Accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 448, 504, 506 R/w. Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocity Act, 1989, registered in respondent police station Crime No. 252/2015.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that one Mr. Prakash Asode lodged a complaint alleging that, on 01.10.2015 when he was in his pan shop, at about 12.00 p.m. the petitioner/accused No. 1 came and asked for pan and accordingly the complainant had given the pan to the petitioner/accused No. 1 and asked for money for having given the pan, for which the petitioner/accused No. 1 abused him in filthy language and threatened the complainant without making payment. It is further alleged that at about 10.00 p.m. during night hours he went to sleep to Deelip Asode Tailoring Shop, the accused persons at about 12.00 midnight came to his residence and knocked the door, then his brother opened the door and the accused persons asked his brother where he is, then his brother told he had went to sleep in Tailor Deelip shop and his brother telephonically informed him about said fact. By that time the petitioner/accused No. 1 knocked the door of said tailor shop and one Prabakar opened the door, then the accused started abusing in filthy language by using the name of his caste and assaulted him. On the basis of said complaint, a case has been registered.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Accused No. 1 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No. 1 made the submission that looking to the complaint averments and the tenor of the complaint, it clearly goes to show that a false complaint has been made against the present petitioner. It is also his submission that there are no injuries. The alleged offence is also under Section 323 of IPC, even for that also, no injury has been caused. It also goes to show that there is a false implication of the petitioner in the case. Learned counsel further submits that, though the incident has been taken place during the night on 01.10.2015 the complaint has been lodged in the evening on the next day and there is delay in lodging the complaint which is not properly explained. Hence, he submitted, by imposing reasonable conditions the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that the petitioner is habitual offender and he is rowdy sheeter as involved in similar other cases also and the learned HCGP furnished 6 to 10 cases registered against the present petitioner. Hence, he submitted that if such person is released on bail, again he will involve in committing the similar offences. Hence, he submitted that the trial Court has rightly rejected the bail petition and accordingly, the petition may be rejected.

I have perused the bail petition, FIR, Complaint and also other materials containing the statement of witnesses and the wound certificate produced by the learned HCGP. Looking to the materials produced by the learned HCGP, they go to show that ten other cases have been registered against the present petitioner and it is also his submission that the petitioner is rowdy sheeter. The statements of witnesses also go to show prima facie the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offences. Looking these materials placed on record, the learned HCGP is justified in making the submission that if he is released on bail again he will involve in other offences. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the bail petition is rejected.

However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner after completing the investigation, to approach the Court.