Shivasharanappa vs The State Of Karnataka
9 May, 2023
Bench: Hon’ble Ramachandra D. Huddar
Introduction
In the case of Shivasharanappa S/O Chandrashekhar Attadmani vs. The State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 200473 of 2023, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail. The petitioner is accused No. 7 in Crime No. 31/2023 registered at Ferhatabad Police Station, Kalaburagi, for offenses punishable under Sections 143, 498(A), 304(B) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Facts:-
According to the facts presented in the petition, the complainant, Sidram, who is the father of the deceased Mahananda, alleges that after her marriage to accused No. 1, Raju, on April 25, 2022, the accused and his family members harassed and demanded additional dowry from the deceased. The petitioner, as accused No. 7 and uncle of accused No. 1, allegedly made threats during a panchayat conducted in relation to the matter. On April 4, 2023, the complainant received a call informing him that Mahananda had consumed pesticide and was being taken to Kalaburagi Hospital. However, when the complainant and his son reached the spot near Kotanoor Math, they found that Mahananda had already died, and the accused persons fled the scene.
Arguments:-
The petitioner, through his counsel, contends that he is a law-abiding citizen from a respectable family and has no criminal antecedents. He denies any involvement in the alleged offenses, stating that he has been falsely implicated in the case due to his relation to accused No. 1. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since his arrest on April 5, 2023.
Judgement:-
The High Court considered the arguments presented by both the petitioner’s counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader representing the State. After a careful examination of the records and allegations, the Court observed that there are no serious accusations against the petitioner, apart from the claim that he made a threatening statement during the panchayat. The Court referred to established principles of bail, including the presumption of innocence and the general rule of granting bail, and noted that the investigation was still ongoing.
Based on these considerations, the Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail. The Court emphasized that bail should be granted with conditions and that it would meet the ends of justice.
“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
