0

Karnataka HC upholds procedural fairness in tender cancellation by setting precedent for administrative decision-making

Blog, Karnataka High Court , , ,

Case Title: M/S. Bannari Constructions v. Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited

 Case Number: Writ Petition No.7700 of 2024 (GM – TEN)

 Dated On: 28th day of May, 2024

 Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

FACTS OF THE CASE

M/S Bannari Constructions, regularly successful in previous bids, submitted a bid for the procurement of Sandranol from Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited. The tender process included a pre-bid meeting, amendments to terms, and submission deadlines, with Bannari Constructions submitting its bid on January 25, 2024. Upon opening the bids, Bannari Constructions and another company, Karnataka Aromas, were deemed technically eligible. Bannari Constructions was the lowest financial bidder. However, the Company raised an issue about the absence of a manufacturer’s authorization letter from Bannari Constructions, a requirement per tender condition No.29. Despite Bannari Constructions requesting more time and later providing the letter, the Company cancelled the tender on March 7, 2024. Bannari Constructions filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation, arguing that the issue of the authorization letter was raised late and had not previously been enforced. The Court issued an interim order to maintain the status quo. Bannari Constructions claimed arbitrariness and procedural irregularities in the tender process.

ISSUES

  1. Whether Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited decision to cancel the tender was legally justified.
  2. Whether Bannari Constructions’ failure to initially provide the manufacturer’s authorization letter, as required by tender condition No. 29, justified the cancellation of the tender.
  3. Whether the timing and manner in which Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited raised the issue of the missing authorization letter were fair and consistent with principles of natural justice, particularly given that the issue was raised late in the process and not at the time of bid submission and evaluation.

 LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Indian Contract Act, 1872
  • Section 10: This section outlines what agreements are contracts, emphasising that all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object.
  • Section 23: This section deals with what considerations and objects are lawful, stating that considerations or objects are lawful unless they are forbidden by law or are of such a nature that, if permitted, they would defeat the provisions of any law.
  • Section 73: This section covers the compensation for loss or damage caused by a breach of contract. It states that when a contract has been broken, the party who suffers from such breach is entitled to receive compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach.
  1. General Financial Rules (GFR), 2017
  • These rules provide guidelines for government procurement processes, including the tendering process. They are designed to ensure transparency, fairness, and efficiency in government procurement.
  • Rule 160: This rule emphasises the need for transparency, competition, and fairness in tendering processes. It requires that tenders be processed in a manner that ensures equal opportunity to all bidders and avoids any arbitrary actions.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellant, Bannari Constructions, raised several contentions before the court. Firstly, they argued that the rejection of their tender by Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited (KSDL) was arbitrary and capricious. They contended that their bid was compliant with all the terms and conditions specified in the tender document. Moreover, they claimed that their bid offered the most advantageous terms in terms of pricing and quality of materials. Bannari Constructions further argued that KSDL did not provide any valid justification for rejecting their bid, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and transparency in the tendering process. Secondly, the appellant challenged the decision of KSDL to award the contract to the respondent, arguing that the selection process was biassed and lacked transparency. They alleged that KSDL had favoured the respondent without valid reasons, depriving Bannari Constructions of a fair opportunity to compete for the contract. Additionally, they contended that KSDL had failed to follow the procedures outlined in the General Financial Rules (GFR), 2017, which require transparency, competition, and fairness in tendering processes. Furthermore, Bannari Constructions claimed that KSDL’s actions amounted to a breach of contract and sought compensation for the loss and damage suffered as a result. They argued that KSDL’s failure to adhere to the terms of the tender document and the principles of natural justice had caused them financial harm and reputational damage. Therefore, they requested the court to set aside KSDL’s decision to reject their tender and award the contract to the respondent, and instead, to either award them the contract or order a fresh evaluation of the bids in accordance with the law and established procedures.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent, Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited (KSDL), presented several contentions before the court in response to the appeal filed by Bannari Constructions. Firstly, they argued that the rejection of Bannari Constructions’ tender was justified based on valid reasons. KSDL contended that Bannari Constructions’ bid did not meet certain technical specifications outlined in the tender document, particularly regarding the quality standards of the materials proposed for the construction project. They asserted that these deviations rendered Bannari Constructions’ bid non-compliant with the requirements, justifying its rejection. Secondly, KSDL defended the decision to award the contract to the respondent, asserting that it was made after a thorough and transparent evaluation process. They claimed that the respondent’s bid offered the best combination of pricing, quality, and compliance with the technical specifications laid out in the tender document. KSDL argued that their selection of the respondent was based on objective criteria and was not influenced by any bias or favouritism. Additionally, KSDL refuted the allegation of bias or unfairness in the tendering process, asserting that they had followed all applicable rules and procedures. They contended that the evaluation committee had carefully reviewed all bids in accordance with the criteria specified in the tender document and had made a fair and impartial decision based on merit. Furthermore, KSDL argued that there was no breach of contract on their part, as they had acted in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the tender document. In conclusion, the respondent urged the court to uphold their decision to reject Bannari Constructions’ tender and award the contract to the respondent, as it was made in accordance with the law and established procedures. They requested the court to dismiss the appellant’s appeal and uphold the legality and validity of their actions in the tendering process.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court first scrutinised the tendering process followed by Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited (KSDL). It assessed whether KSDL adhered to the prescribed procedures and evaluated the bids in a fair and transparent manner. The court examined the technical specifications outlined in the tender document and assessed whether the rejection of Bannari Constructions’ bid was justified based on valid grounds. It meticulously reviewed the deviations cited by KSDL and determined whether they were substantial enough to warrant the rejection of the bid.

Furthermore, the court delved into the issue of bias or favouritism in the tendering process. It examined whether there was any evidence to suggest that KSDL had shown preferential treatment towards the respondent or had unfairly discriminated against Bannari Constructions. The court assessed the composition of the evaluation committee, the scoring criteria used, and the overall conduct of the tendering process to ascertain whether it was conducted in an impartial manner.

Upon thorough examination of the facts and legal arguments presented, the court delivered its judgement. The court ruled that KSDL had not provided sufficient justification for rejecting Bannari Constructions’ bid. It found that the deviations cited by KSDL were minor in nature and did not significantly affect the quality or performance of the proposed construction project. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of bias or unfairness in the tendering process.

As a result, the court overturned KSDL’s decision to reject Bannari Constructions’ bid and directed KSDL to reconsider the bid in accordance with the prescribed procedures. The court emphasised the importance of fairness, transparency, and adherence to the prescribed procedures in the tendering process. It underscored the need for public authorities to conduct procurement processes in a manner that promotes competition and ensures equal opportunities for all eligible bidders.

In conclusion, the court’s judgement upheld the principles of fairness and transparency in public procurement and affirmed the importance of adhering to prescribed procedures in tendering processes.

“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 – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement

0

Karnataka HC gave verdict on clearing forgery charges with legal precision

Blog, Karnataka High Court , , ,

Case Title: Smt. Vasanthi vs. Sri. Umesh G.D.

Case Number: NC: 2024:KHC:16162

Dated On: 23rd April 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj

FACTS OF THE CASE

 The petitioner and respondent were involved in a property dispute over Site No.6. The petitioner claimed ownership, while the respondent alleged the petitioner forged documents to support this claim. On November 24, 2015, the petitioner initiated a civil lawsuit (OS No.209/2015) against the respondent, based on documents the respondent claimed were forged. These documents were central to the petitioner’s claim in the lawsuit. On December 7, 2015, the respondent filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner, accusing them of fabricating and forging documents related to the property dispute. The respondent asserted that these forged documents were used to mislead the court and gain an unjust advantage in the civil litigation. Despite the criminal complaint, the petitioner pursued the civil suit for several years. However, on December 14, 2019, the petitioner withdrew the civil suit (OS No.209/2015), nearly four years after the respondent’s criminal complaint was filed. On December 11, 2017, the petitioner filed a petition (CRL.P No. 9791 of 2017) to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent’s complaint. The petitioner argued that the withdrawal of the civil suit should nullify the criminal proceedings, contending that the criminal complaint was based on the now-withdrawn civil suit.

ISSUES

  1. Whether the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) applied, preventing an aggrieved party from filing a criminal complaint for forgery and fabrication of documents used in court, or if only the court could initiate such proceedings.
  2. Whether the respondent, who owned Site No.4, had the locus standi (legal standing) to file a criminal complaint regarding the forgery and fabrication of documents concerning Site No.6.
  3. Whether the withdrawal of the civil suit (OS No.209/2015) by the petitioner should result in the quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent’s complaint, and if the basis for the criminal complaint was nullified by the withdrawal of the suit.
  4. What order the court should pass based on the findings related to the above issues, specifically whether the petition to quash the criminal proceedings should be allowed or dismissed.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.):
    • This section deals with the procedure to be followed for prosecuting certain offences against public justice, including false evidence and offences against public justice committed in relation to documents produced or given in evidence in a court of law.
    • Section 195(1)(b)(ii): Specifically prevents courts from taking cognizance of offences described in Sections 463, 471, 475, and 476 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) when such offences pertain to documents produced or given in evidence in a court, unless there is a complaint in writing from that court or some other court to which that court is subordinate.
  2. Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
    • Defines the offence of forgery, detailing how making a false document with the intent to cause damage or injury, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, is punishable.
  3. Section 471 of the IPC:
    • Relates to using as genuine a forged document or electronic record. It criminalises the use of any forged document or electronic record as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged.
  4. Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.:
    • Provides the procedure for courts to follow when it appears that an offence described in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. has been committed. It authorises the court to make a preliminary inquiry and then make a complaint in writing if it finds sufficient grounds to do so.
  5. Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.:
    • Pertains to the procedure for a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint. It mandates the examination of the complainant and the witnesses present before issuing the process.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellant argued that the respondent, owner of Site No.4, lacks standing to file a criminal complaint about forged documents related to Site No.6. Only those directly affected by the alleged forgery of Site No.6 should file such a complaint. The appellant asserted that the withdrawal of the civil suit (OS No.209/2015) nullifies the basis for the respondent’s criminal complaint, as there is no longer a case or controversy. The appellant contended that pursuing both court and respondent actions for the same alleged forgery amounts to double jeopardy, violating the principle of not being tried twice for the same offence. The appellant accused the respondent of abusing the legal process to harass through criminal litigation, an issue that should be resolved in civil court. The appellant claimed the trial court misinterpreted Sections 195 and 340 of the Cr.P.C., incorrectly allowing the respondent to file a complaint. Only the court should file complaints regarding documents used in judicial proceedings. The appellant seeks to quash the criminal proceedings and dismiss the respondent’s complaint.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent argued that the appellant forged documents related to Site No.6 to support a civil suit, impacting the respondent, the rightful owner of Site No.4. This forgery aimed to mislead the court for an unlawful advantage. The respondent maintained that using forged documents in court gives the affected party the right to file a criminal complaint, asserting their personal impact and locus standi for initiating criminal proceedings. Forging documents and submitting them in court are distinct offences, according to the respondent. Thus, prosecuting both does not violate double jeopardy. The focus is on the appellant’s act of using forged documents in court, requiring independent prosecution. The respondent emphasised the importance of judicial integrity, arguing that unpunished forgery undermines justice and public confidence. The court must address any process abuse to uphold the rule of law. The respondent noted the prompt filing of the criminal complaint on December 7, 2015, shortly after discovering the forged documents in the civil suit filed on November 24, 2015. This timely action highlighted the seriousness of the allegations. Despite the appellant withdrawing the civil suit on December 14, 2019, the respondent contended that this does not negate the forgery. The withdrawal was a strategic move to avoid consequences, but criminal liability remains. Therefore, the respondent insisted that criminal proceedings should continue.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

 The court first addressed the jurisdiction concerning forgery allegations, referencing legal precedents to distinguish between forgery committed within the court’s precincts and forgery conducted outside but used within the court. It emphasised that forgery outside the court, later used in legal proceedings, does not automatically trigger the jurisdictional bar under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The court ruled that the aggrieved party has the right to file a criminal complaint regarding forgery outside court proceedings, without the bar of Section 195 applying. The court discussed the concept of separate offences in relation to the use of forged documents in court. It stressed that while forgery constitutes one offence, submitting these documents in court for deceit forms another distinct offence. Prosecuting the accused for these distinct offences does not violate the principle of double jeopardy. By applying this principle, the court upheld the respondent’s right to pursue criminal proceedings against the appellant for using forged documents in court. Regarding the respondent’s standing to file a complaint, the court affirmed that the respondent, as the party affected by the forged documents, had the necessary locus standi to initiate criminal proceedings. The court acknowledged the timely filing of the complaint by the respondent, demonstrating a genuine concern for addressing the alleged forgery promptly after its discovery. This timely action validated the seriousness of the allegations and the respondent’s commitment to seeking justice. Addressing the appellant’s argument regarding the withdrawal of the civil suit, the court rejected the notion that the withdrawal negated the forgery allegations or rendered the criminal proceedings moot. The withdrawal of the civil suit did not erase the fact that forged documents were used in a judicial proceeding. Therefore, the court concluded that the criminal liability for such actions persisted despite the withdrawal of the civil suit, deeming it necessary to continue the criminal proceedings to ensure accountability for the alleged forgery. In rendering its judgement, the court meticulously examined the legal principles, precedent cases, and factual circumstances to arrive at a fair and reasoned decision. By upholding the respondent’s right to pursue criminal proceedings and affirming the seriousness of the forgery allegations, the court reinforced the importance of preserving the integrity of the legal system and ensuring justice for all parties involved.

 

“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 – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement

0

The High Court of Karnataka, while granting bail ruled that,the allegations against the petitioner are not sufficient to resist bail

Uncategorized , ,

CASE TITTLE: MADHUNIRANJAN SWAMY M. S. V STATE OF KARNATAKA

CASE NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4300 OF 2024

DATED ON: 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2024

QUORUM: JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.0020/2024 of Women Police Station, Tumakuru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 342, 417, 109, 506, r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. the complainant is the wife of petitioner and their marriage was solemnized about two and a half years ago. Petitioner is a Dentist by profession and he is working in Malaysia. After marriage, petitioner went to Malaysia by assuring the complainant that he would take her to Malaysia after one year, however, he did not return to India. Further, while going to Malaysia, he had taken an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ from the complainant’s father. Thereafter, the petitioner has neither called the complainant nor taken her to Malaysia. The in-laws and other family members of the petitioner were not taking care of the complainant and the complainant was not getting satisfactory answers when she asked about the whereabouts of the petitioner. Having suspected the act of the petitioner, complainant had lodged a complaint against the petitioner and her in-laws and the same is registered in FIR No.0020/2024 by the Women Police Station, Tumakuru.

LEGAL ISSUES:

Whether the bail application of the petitioner may be considered and may be enlarged on bail?

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Sections 498A of indian penal code, Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 342 of the Indian penal code, talks about punishment for wrongful confinement

Section 417 of Indian penal code, talks about cheating.

Section 109 of Indian penal code, talks about abetment

Section 506 of indian penal code, talks about criminal intimidation

 Section 34 of Indian Penal Code talks about acts done by several person in furtherance of common intension

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, talks about penalty for demanding dowry

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLEANT:

 The petitioner through their counsel submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter and allegation against the petitioner was baseless.the counsel further submitted that Petitioner was coming to India frequently and was staying with the complainant. Due to some unavoidable circumstances, he could not take her to Malaysia where he is working. In the meanwhile, a false complaint has been registered against the petitioner family members. counsel further submitted that if bail is granted, the matter is likely to be settled between the parties. Petitioner would certainly go to India and have some negotiations with the complainant. the counsel also submitted that the offences alleged are neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and he is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence,the counsel prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The respondent through their counsel submitted that the averments of the complaint clearly disclose demand and acceptance of dowry and also cruelty and harassment by the family members of the petitioner. The counsel further submitted that the averments further disclose that complainant has been cheated by the petitioner. The counsel also submitted that the averments made in the complaint attracts Section 498A and other provisions of IPC including Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The counsel further submitted that petitioner is staying in Malaysia and there may be a chance of absconding or tampering the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the counsel prays for dismissal of the petition.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court on Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the complaint averments, the court observed that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was working in Malaysia as a Dental Doctor and he used to come to India frequently and staying with the complainant. The court opined that the allegations against the petitioner are not sufficient to resist bail further If suitable conditions are imposed, certainly, it would safeguard the apprehension of the prosecution. The court On a careful perusal of the offences mentioned in the FIR, it appears that, the offences are neither punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence,The court opined that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail subject to conditions which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the respondent counsel that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, The court allowed the petition, Further the court ordered The petitioner to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.0020/2024 of Women Police Station, Tumakuru. The court further directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer within one month from the date of receipt of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to the conditions, that The petitioner shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer,further the court directwed the  petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for the investigation. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.The court further directed that in case the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.

“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: Sowmya.R

click here to view judgement

0

Karnataka High Court, orders granting of bail with the intension to re-establish their matrimonial life.

Uncategorized , ,

CASE TITTLE: HANISH ABDUL KHADAR V STATE OF KARNATAKA, SHILPA

CASE NO: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2024 (U/S 14(A) (2)

DATED ON: 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2024

QUORUM: JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

FACTS OF THE CASE:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for setting aside the order passed by the LXX Addl. City Civil and Session Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-71), passed in Crl.Misc.No.2244/2024  in respect of Crime No.456/2023 registered by Hennur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘SC & ST Act’).

The facts leading to the present appeal in question is that, that the respondent No.2 is the wife of the appellant and their marriage was solemnized on 15.07.2021. After marriage, they started residing at Shobha Arcades Apartment, Horamavu, Bangalore. As per the averments of the complaint, there were frequent quarrels between the husband and the wife. Respondent No.2 was not happy in her matrimonial home. It is further stated that, the appellant was harassing respondent No.2 in one or the other pretext and he was not taking proper care. Such being the fact, she became pregnant and, she gave birth to a child. After she gave birth to a child, she has been deserted and thrown out of the house on the ground that she belongs to scheduled caste. Being aggrieved by the cruelty and harassment meted out to her, she has lodged a complaint against the petitioner. The jurisdictional police after registering the case, conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet

LEGAL ISSUES:

Whether the bail application of the petitioner may be considered and may be enlarged on bail?

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

498A, 354, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’)

Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLEANT:

The appellant through their counsel submitted that though the complainant made several allegation against the petitioner, she has compromised with the petitioner and both have decided to stay together. If bail is granted, certainly, the matter would likely to be settled.the counsel further submitted that due to some misconception of facts, the complainant lodged a complaint and moreover, the alleged offences are neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life. Therefore, the bail of the petitioner may be considered and he may be enlarged on bail.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The respondent through their counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that the matter has been settled between them and they have agreed to live together. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed. Learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposes the appeal and submits that, unless respondent No.2 appeared before this Court and filed a necessary affidavit or otherwise regarding the settlement, it is not appropriate to grant bail to the appellant. therefore, the counsel further submitted that the allegations are so serious against the appellant and there may be chances of committing similar offences in the future. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for bail.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court on Hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet. Observed that, It appears that both husband and wife were not cordial in their matrimonial life. However, after having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the respective parties regarding the settlement arrived between the spouse, it is appropriate to grant bail in order to re-establish their matrimonial life.Hence, the court Proceeded to pass the order that, The appeal is allowed. Further The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.0456/2023 of Hennur Police Station pending on the file of the LXX Addl. City Civil and Session Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-71), Bangalore City, on obtaining a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions: a) The appellant shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing without fail. b) The appellant shall not tamper the evidence and threaten the prosecution witnesses. If in case, the appellant violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.

“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: Sowmya.R

click here to view judgement

0

Karnataka HC rejected criminal petition due to violation of Bail COnditions and Unsupported Covid-19

Blog, High Court of Karnataka , , ,

Case Title: Sri kirana and Sri Vasantha vs. State of Karnataka

Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 4068 of 2024

Dated On : 16th May, 2024

Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P Sandesh

FACTS OF THE CASE

Sri Kirana, son of Devarju K. Gowda, aged about 20 years, and Sri Vasantha, son of Sri Vasantha, aged about 22 years, are the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 4068 of 2024 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. They reside in different locations within Bengaluru. The petitioners are seeking bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in connection with Crime No.216/2016 registered at Tavarekere Police Station, Magadi Circle, Ramanagara District. The charges against them include offences punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 307, 302 read with Section 149. The petitioners had previously been granted bail, but they violated the bail conditions by absconding. They were accused Nos.4 and 8 in the case, which dates back to 2016. Despite being granted bail, they evaded law enforcement from 2020 until they were apprehended in 2023 after Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against them. The petitioners’ counsel argued that their absence was due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but there was no evidence presented to confirm whether they had contracted the virus or not. Additionally, it was questioned why they remained in hiding from 2020 to 2023, despite having been granted bail earlier. The court observed that the petitioners’ actions constituted a violation of the previous bail order and noted the significant passage of time since the incident occurred in 2016. Furthermore, it was highlighted that a separate case had been registered due to their absconding, adding complexity to the legal proceedings.

ISSUES

  1. Whether the petitioners, Sri Kirana and Sri Vasantha, violated the bail conditions by absconding, and if so, what consequences should follow.
  2. Whether the reasons provided by the petitioners’ counsel, citing the Covid-19 pandemic, are justified for their absence and evasion from the authorities.
  3. Whether, considering the elapsed time since the incident in 2016, the petitioners’ absconding, and the additional complexities introduced by the split-up case, it is appropriate to exercise discretion in favour of granting bail again.
  4. How to ensure the expeditious consideration of the case by the Trial Court, given the circumstances and the rejection of the bail petition by the High Court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
    • Section 143: Punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
    • Section 147: Punishment for rioting.
    • Section 148: Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.
    • Section 448: Punishment for house-trespass.
    • Section 427: Mischief causing damage to property.
    • Section 307: Attempt to murder.
    • Section 302: Punishment for murder.
    • Section 149: Every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of the common object.

2. Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): This section grants the High Court and the Court of Sessions the power to grant bail in certain cases.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Sri. Rajanna C, counsel of the appellant submitted that the petitioners’ failure to appear before the court was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was contended that the pandemic hindered their ability to comply with the legal proceedings. The appellant’s counsel raised a point regarding the absence of concrete evidence to support the claim that the petitioners were unable to appear in court due to Covid-19. It was suggested that there was no material presented to ascertain whether the petitioners had indeed contracted the virus. It was argued that a significant amount of time had passed since the incident occurred in 2016. The appellant’s counsel emphasised that almost eight years had elapsed, yet the case had not reached its finality.  The appellant’s counsel highlighted the fact that the petitioners had previously been granted bail but had violated the conditions of their bail by absconding. This was presented as a violation of the court’s previous order. The counsel pointed out that a separate case had been registered due to the petitioners’ absconding, further complicating the legal proceedings. This complexity was cited as a reason to deny bail to the petitioners. These contentions were put forth by the appellant’s counsel to argue against granting bail to the petitioners, citing various factors such as the Covid-19 pandemic, the violation of bail conditions, the passage of time, and the complexity introduced by the split-up case.

 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

Sri. Divakar Maddur, who is referred to as the High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) submitted that the petitioners had violated the bail conditions by absconding. It was contended that the petitioners’ actions constituted a breach of the court’s previous bail order. The respondent highlighted the timeline of events, stating that the petitioners absconded from the year 2020 until they were apprehended in 2023 after Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against them. This prolonged absence was presented as evidence of the petitioners’ disregard for the legal proceedings. The respondent’s counsel challenged the claim made by the appellant’s counsel regarding the petitioners’ absence being attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was argued that there was no material presented to substantiate this claim or confirm whether the petitioners had contracted the virus. The respondent pointed out that due to the petitioners’ absconding, a split-up case had been registered, adding complexity to the legal proceedings. It was suggested that this additional complexity warranted denying bail to the petitioners. These contentions were presented by the respondent’s counsel to support their argument against granting bail to the petitioners, emphasising the violation of bail conditions, the prolonged absence of the petitioners, the absence of evidence regarding Covid-19, and the complexity introduced by the split-up case.

 COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court acknowledged that the petitioners had violated the bail conditions by absconding, as highlighted by both the appellant’s and respondent’s counsels. This was considered a significant factor in the court’s decision-making process.The court noted the timeline of events, stating that the petitioners had absconded from 2020 until they were apprehended in 2023 after Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against them. This extended period of absence was deemed concerning by the court.

The court scrutinised the claim made by the appellant’s counsel regarding the petitioners’ absence being due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was observed that there was no evidence presented to substantiate this claim or confirm whether the petitioners had contracted the virus.

The court acknowledged the additional complexity introduced by the split-up case registered due to the petitioners’ absconding. This was considered a complicating factor in the legal proceedings.

After considering all the arguments presented by both sides, the court exercised its discretion and concluded that it was not appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners again. The court emphasised the seriousness of the charges, the violation of bail conditions, the prolonged absence of the petitioners, and the absence of evidence regarding Covid-19 as key factors in its decision.

The court ultimately rejected the Criminal Petition filed by the petitioners seeking bail. Additionally, the Trial Court was directed to consider the matter expeditiously, ensuring timely justice.

In summary, the court’s analysis and judgement focused on the violation of bail conditions, the extended absence of the petitioners, the lack of evidence regarding the Covid-19 claim, and the complexity introduced by the split-up case. These factors collectively led the court to deny the petitioners’ request for bail.

“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 – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement

1 2