Raju S/O Khubu Chavan vs The State Of Karnataka
11 May, 2023
Bench: Hon’ble Ramachandra D. Huddar
Introduction:
In a recent judgment, the Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench, presided over by Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar, granted bail to Raju, the son of Khubu Chavan, who was accused in a case of assault. The case, registered under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), had been pending before the J.M.F.C. Court at Shahabad. This blog provides a summary of the judgment and explores the key arguments presented by both the petitioner and the prosecution.
Summary of the Case:
The petitioner, Raju Chavan, filed a bail petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking his release in Crime No. 02/2023 registered by the Shahabad Town Police Station. He was charged with offenses punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
According to the complaint filed by Sri Manik Naduvinakeri, it was alleged that Raju, along with other accused, wrongfully restrained and assaulted the complainant’s son. The complaint detailed a series of events involving verbal abuse, physical assault, and injuries caused to multiple individuals. The petitioner contended that he was innocent, falsely implicated due to animosity, and that the other accused had already been granted bail. He assured the court of his willingness to comply with any conditions imposed.
Arguments Presented:
The petitioner’s counsel argued that all previous cases against Raju had resulted in acquittal, except for three pending trials. They claimed that the petitioner had not committed any offense and was falsely implicated due to personal animosity. Furthermore, they highlighted the petitioner’s permanent residence, his cooperation with the court, and the discharge of the victim from the hospital.
The prosecution, represented by the Additional Special Public Prosecutor (ASPP), opposed the bail petition. They contended that Raju was a habitual offender involved in multiple cases, including the present one. The ASPP argued that the petitioner posed a threat of repeating similar offenses if released on bail. They emphasized the seriousness of the charges and the completion of the investigation, with a charge-sheet already filed.
High Court’s Observations and Decision:
The High Court carefully examined the complaint, supporting documents, and arguments from both sides. It acknowledged the assault on the complainant’s son as alleged in the complaint. However, the court noted that the victim had been discharged from the hospital, and there was no evidence suggesting an ongoing threat to the victim’s life.
Referring to established legal principles, the court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the general rule of granting bail. It cited previous Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that detention should not be authorized casually or mechanically. The court rejected the contention that the petitioner’s involvement in other cases alone justified denying bail, as the acquittals in those cases were indicative of his non-conviction.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the principle of parity, the court granted bail to Raju Chavan. The court imposed certain conditions, including executing personal bonds, refraining from threatening or tampering with witnesses, marking regular attendance at the police station, and cooperating with further investigations. It warned that any breach of these conditions would result in the cancellation of bail.
Conclusion:
The Karnataka High Court’s judgment in the case of Raju S/O Khubu Chavan vs. The State of Karnataka highlights the court’s commitment to the presumption of innocence and the importance of bail as the general rule. The court’s decision to grant bail to the petitioner, based on the specific facts and circumstances presented.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREEYA S SHEKAR
