Category Archives: Uncategorized

Nemappa S/O Chandrappa 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, granted bail to Mr. Nemappa S/O Chandrappa, a 60-year-old coolie residing in Gorebal, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur District. The bail was granted in connection with Crime No. 39/2022-23/2706SIE1/270606 registered at the Lingasugur Police Station under various sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The decision was made by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar, who found merit in the petitioner’s arguments and ordered his release on bail.

Background:
The case originated from a complaint filed by the Excise Sub-Inspector of Lingasugur Excise Range, stating that Mr. Nemappa was allegedly cultivating ganja plants on his land in Gorebai Thanda No.1. Acting on the information, the Excise Inspector, along with his staff and village panchayat members, visited the location and found four ganja plants weighing a total of 7 kilograms and 225 grams. Subsequently, the ganja plants were seized, and a case was registered against Mr. Nemappa under the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act.

Petitioner’s Arguments:
Mr. Nemappa’s counsel vehemently argued for his innocence, claiming that his client had been falsely implicated in the case. They disputed the alleged seizure of ganja from the petitioner’s possession, asserting that the prosecution had failed to produce any evidence establishing his involvement. The defense further contended that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 to 50 of the NDPS Act had not been properly followed during the investigation. Additionally, they emphasized Mr. Nemappa’s age (60 years) and cited Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which supports granting bail to elderly individuals.

Prosecution’s Response:
The prosecution, represented by the High Court Government Pleader, opposed the bail petition, asserting that the offenses under the NDPS Act were non-bailable. They argued that the ganja plants had indeed been seized from Mr. Nemappa’s possession, amounting to a substantial quantity. The prosecution also raised concerns about the petitioner interfering with the ongoing investigation and the potential negative message his release could send to society.

Court’s Decision:
After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the complaint and supporting records, Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar delivered the order. The court observed that the prosecution had not produced any documents to prove the petitioner’s ownership of the land where the ganja plants were allegedly grown. Moreover, it noted discrepancies regarding the weight of the seized ganja, which was described as wet and subject to reduction in weight once dried. The court highlighted that growing ganja is an offense under the NDPS Act, but the determination of the petitioner’s guilt should be decided during the trial. Considering the petitioner’s age and lack of criminal antecedents, the court held that bail should be granted with certain conditions.

Conclusion:
The Karnataka High Court’s decision to grant bail to Mr. Nemappa S/O Chandrappa in the NDPS case reflects the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The court recognized the need to strike a balance between individual liberty and the seriousness of the offense, thereby allowing the petitioner’s release on bail. As the case proceeds to trial, the court’s decision serves as a reminder of the importance of due process and the rule of law.

“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

Click here to view judgement

Mathivanan Durai Alias Adharsh vs State

4 May, 2023

Bench: G Basavaraja

Background of the Case:

The complainant, Deepika, filed a complaint with the police, alleging that Mathivanan Durai Alias Adharsh had raped her on a specific date. She stated that the accused, who was previously employed in the same company as her, had visited her house and expressed his desire to marry her. When she rejected his proposal, he forcefully raped her in his rented room. The complainant further claimed that the accused began to harass and blackmail her after the incident, threatening to disclose the incident to her parents unless she complied with his demands.

Arguments Presented:

During the bail hearing, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the victim had maintained a consensual relationship with the accused, even after the alleged incident of rape. It was claimed that the victim wanted the accused to divorce his wife and marry her. The defense further highlighted that the complainant celebrated her birthday with the accused after the incident, suggesting a continued association between them. Additionally, the defense pointed out that the complainant had not undergone a medical examination as required by Section 164(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C).

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Justice G Basavaraja critically examined the arguments presented by both parties and assessed the circumstances of the case. The court noted the delay in filing the complaint, which occurred approximately two months after the alleged incident. While considering the gravity of the offense, the court found that there was an inadequate explanation for the delay in reporting the crime. However, after careful deliberation, the court concluded that there were no compelling reasons to deny bail to the accused.

The court imposed certain conditions upon the grant of bail. The accused was directed to execute a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and provide one surety of the same amount. Moreover, the accused was ordered not to tamper with or threaten the prosecution witnesses. Additionally, the accused was required to cooperate with the investigating officer during the ongoing investigation.

Analysis and Implications:

The Karnataka High Court’s decision to grant bail in this case has sparked discussions regarding the interpretation and application of the law in cases involving sexual offenses. The court’s evaluation of the delay in filing the complaint and the existence of a consensual relationship between the parties has raised questions about the threshold for granting bail in such circumstances. This ruling serves as a reminder of the complex legal considerations and challenges faced by the judiciary when dealing with cases of sexual offenses.

Conclusion:

The Mathivanan Durai Alias Adharsh case, with its grant of bail by the Karnataka High Court, has generated significant debate surrounding the dynamics of consent, delay in reporting, and the factors influencing judicial decisions. As the case progresses, it will be important to closely monitor how the legal system navigates the delicate balance between protecting victims’ rights and ensuring fair treatment for the accused.

“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

Click here to view image

The single-judge bench consisting of Justice Subhendu Samanta of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sk. Farid @ Fariduddin v. The State of West Bengal affirmed a Sessions Court ruling canceling bail on the grounds that the accused lied to the Sessions Court about his former bail application being denied by the High Court.

Facts of the Case:

An application was filed by the complainant under Section 439 (2) for the cancellation of the bail granted to the accused petitioner. The Sessions Court on May 8, 2018, allowed the application for cancellation of bail and the order granting bail in favor of the present petitioner was canceled. Hence, the accused petitioner filed the present revision petition before the High Court.

Judgment Review:

The Court noted that while submitting the bail prayer the petitioner on affidavit stated no application for bail has been either rejected by the High Court or is pending for disposal before the High Court and on the basis of such declaration, the order of bail was granted by the Sessions Court. It was further noted by the bench that the Sessions Court while passing the impugned order was of the view that the suppression of earlier rejection of bail prayer by the High Court was a fraud practice upon a court. Thus, the bench upheld the impugned order of the Sessions Court and dismissed the revision petition filed by the accused petitioner.

Click here to view the Judgment

“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 falls into the category of the 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”

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY DIVYA SHREE GN