Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri. Channakeshav S/o. Basappa Tingarikar, filed a criminal petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench, seeking a direction to the concerned Investigation Officer to enlarge him on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.135/2016 of Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad. The case was initially registered for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against unknown persons and later charge-sheeted against six accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of IPC. The matter was subsequently re-registered as FIR vide RC-17(S)2019 dated 24.09.2019 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petitioner was represented by Sri. Dinesh M. Kulkarni, Advocate, and the respondent/CBI was represented by Sri. M.B. Kanavi, Advocate. The court heard both sides and perused the entire material on record. The charge-sheet material disclosed that on account of a land dispute and previous enmity, accused No.1 conspired with accused Nos.2 to 6 to do away with the life of the deceased. The court considered the nature and gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the petitioner, and observed that custodial interrogation may be required. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 Cr.P.C. - Prima Facie Case - Petitioner, a public servant, sought anticipatory bail in a murder case arising from a land dispute and previous enmity - Court held that considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the petitioner, custodial interrogation may be required - Held that the petitioner failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.135/2016 re-registered as RC-17(S)2019 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 201 r/w 149 of IPC.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The petitioner failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- prima facie case
- custodial interrogation
- criminal conspiracy
- murder
- land dispute
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (11) 50
Criminal Petition No.101414 of 2020
Sri. Dinesh M. Kulkarni, Sri. M.B. Kanavi
Sri. Channakeshav S/o. Basappa Tingarikar
The Central Bureau of Investigation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Remedy Sought
Direction to the Investigation Officer to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.135/2016 re-registered as RC-17(S)2019.
Filing Reason
The petitioner apprehended arrest in connection with a murder case arising from a land dispute and previous enmity.
Previous Decisions
The case was initially registered as Crime No.135/2016 by Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad, and later re-registered as RC-17(S)2019 by CBI. Charge-sheet was filed against six accused persons.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the role attributed to him.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned counsel for petitioner argued for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for respondent/CBI opposed the petition, submitting that custodial interrogation may be required.
Ratio Decidendi
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the petitioner, custodial interrogation may be required. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Judgment Excerpts
The charge-sheet material disclose that on account of a land dispute and previous enmity, accused No.1 conspired with accused Nos.2 to 6 to do away with the life of deceased.
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the petitioner, custodial interrogation may be required.
Procedural History
The case was initially registered as Crime No.135/2016 by Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad, for an offence under Section 302 IPC against unknown persons. Subsequently, charge-sheet was filed against six accused persons for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 302, 201 r/w 149 IPC. The matter was re-registered as FIR vide RC-17(S)2019 dated 24.09.2019 by CBI. The petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.101414 of 2020 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the High Court on 30.11.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 201, 149
