LAZARUS ABRAHAM LUNJALA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a bail petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime.No.81/2018, Sub Urban Police Station, Dharwad, pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC Court, Dharwd, registered for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 448, 504, 354, 307, 427, 109, 323 r/w 149 of IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 9/7/2018, the complainant one Kallavva Pujar lodged a complaint before the respondent police. She has alleged in the complaint that she was residing along with her relatives at Kelgeri-Dharwad. She owned a land bearing Block No.89/1B, measuring 1 acre 14 guntas at Kelageri. The said land belongs to herself and her children and children of her brothers, namely, Kallanagouda, Basanagouda and Shankargouda. At the instance of accused No.1, the said property was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- and accused No.2 paid Rs.4,00,000/- as advance on 5/12/2011. The remaining amount was agreed to be paid at the time of sale deed. She has stated that the accused persons got executed a sale deed forcibly. Therefore, she filed a suit bearing O.S. No.221/2017 on the file of the Civil Judge, Dharwad, and thereafter, the said suit was compromised before the Lok Adalath, as the accused agreed to pay the balance consideration amount. She has further stated when she demanded the accused for the payment of balance consideration, they assaulted herself and her family members on 24/1/2015 and in that connection she has filed the complaint and the case was registered in Crime No.242/2017. The complainant has further sated that on 9/7/2018, the accused persons entered her house, dragged her and assaulted her and thereafter, they tied her hands and left her in the well. They demolished their house with the help of JCB. On the basis of the said compliant, the respondent police have registered a case against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner herein and other accused were arrested in the said case.

(3.) The petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in the FIR has stated hat at no point of time, he was connected with the offences alleged against him. The complainant has already field a complaint and the petitioner and other accused are facing trial in the said case. The decree passed in the Lok Adalath is not questioned by the complainant. The petitioner was contesting railway election and therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the case. He is neither the purchaser nor the agreement holder of the land of the complainant. The complainant had sustained simple injures and she was discharged on the same day. He is the permanent resident of place shown in the cause title. He is the Central Government employee. He is ready and willing to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by the Court and to furnish adequate surety.