Karnataka High Court
Bheema Rathu Kavle vs State By Devaraja Police Mysore on 22 February, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA
CRL.P.No.7120 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. BHEEMA RATHU KAVLE
S/O RATHU KAVLE
AGE 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT SELAGAN
KARMAL TALUK
SOLAPUR DISTRICT
MAHARASTRA STATE-413 002
2. ANIL ARJUN DAGHDE
S/O ARJUN DAGADE
AGE: 27 YEARS
RESIDING AT SELAGAN
KARMAL TALUK
SOLAPUR DISTRICT
MAHARASTRA STATE-413 002
3. SUNIL AMBEER RAO DAGHDE
S/O AMBEER DAGADE
AGE: 19 YEARS
RESIDING AT SELAGAN
KARMAL TALUK
SOLAPUR DISTRICT
MAHARASTRA STATE-413 002
..PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.V.CHARATI, ADV.)
2
AND:
STATE BY DEVARAJA POLICE MYSORE
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY MR. G.N.SRINIVASA REDDY, HCGP)
***
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR. NO.181/2012 OF
DEVARAJA P.S., MYSORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
399 AND 402 OF IPC., ETC.,
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In this petition, filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioners arraigned as accused No.8 to 10 in Cr. No. 181/2012 of Devaraja Police Station, Mysore City registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 & 402 of IPC, have sought for an order to enlarge them on bail.
3
2. According to the case of the prosecution at about 2.00 a.m. on 12.10.12, when P.S.I. Devraj Police Station along with his staff was on patrolling duty, near Railway under bridge, they noticed a cement colour Tata Safari bearing registration No.MH 14/X 9090 and one person sitting on the driver's seat along with another and about 7 to 8 standing by the side of the Car armed with clubs and iron rods etc. Immediately the PSI and the staff surrounded all those persons and caught hold all of them. On interrogation all of them disclosed their names and identity. They disclosed that they hail from Maharashtra and they had gathered there to commit acts of dacoity. The weapons held by them as well as the vehicle parked there and mobile phones were seized. Thereafter, on the basis of suo moto report of the PSI, case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up.
3. Subsequently, the petitioners were subjected to judicial custody. Their application filed for grant of bail was rejected by the learned Sessions 4 Judge. In the meanwhile, on completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
4. The petition is opposed by respondent-State.
5. I have heard both the sides and perused the records made available.
6. It is brought to the notice of this court that accused 1 to 7 are already enlarged as per the orders passed by this Court in Crl. P. No.7258/2012. It is contended that these petitioners stand on the same footing as that of accused 1 to 7, therefore, they are also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Copy of the order dated 28.01.2013 in Crl. P. No.7258/2012 is produced and it is noticed that this Court has already granted bail to accused 1 to 7.
7. Having regard to the case of the prosecution as noticed supra, these petitioners arraigned as accused No.8 to 10 stand on the same footing as that of accused 1 to 7. When similarly placed accused have 5 already been enlarged on bail, I do not find any justifiable ground to deny the relief of bail to these petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for order of bail on the ground of parity.
7. Hence, the petition is allowed. The Petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with case in Crime No.181/2012 on the file of Devaraja Police Station, Mysore City on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for the like sum out of which one should be a local solvent surety, to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Magistrate/Sessions Judge and subject to further conditions that,
i) The petitioners shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case.
6
iii) The petitioners shall appear on all hearing dates before the Trial Court without fail.
SD/-
JUDGE VK