Karnataka High Court
Sarvi @ T S Saravana vs State Of Karnataka on 23 March, 2016
Author: A.V.Chandrashekara
Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1244/2016
BETWEEN:
SARVI @ T.S.SARAVANA,
SARVANA KUMAR,
S/O LATE SABAHAPATHIGOWDER,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF 3RD CROSS,
OPPOSITE TO MARIYAMMA TEMPLE,
P.H.COLONY, TUMKUR TOWN,
TUMKUR - 572 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.CHETHAN.B. , ADV.,)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
KYATHSANDRA POLICE - 572 104.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CR.NO.206/2015 OF KYATHASANDRA P.S.,
TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 225(B), 307, 332, 353
OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Cr.No.206/2015, a case registered by the respondent- police. After concluding investigation, charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 225B, 307, 332, 353 of IPC. The petitioner was also accused in Cr.No.100/2015, a case registered by the respondent- police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 341, 302 r/w 149 of IPC.
3. The petitioner was being taken back to a village for further investigation relating to Cr.No.100/2015 by the police. The petitioner wanted to attend to nature call and in the guise of attending to nature call, he tried to escape from the custody of the police. When the police were trying apprehending the petitioner, he took a stone and tried to thrown on the police and even threatened them. In spite of several warnings nor to do so, he did not come back and on the other hand, he went on threatening the police and tried 3 to assault the police officials with the leading chain. At that time, the sub-inspector who was in the duty had to fire against him and as a result of the same, he fell down.
4. What is argued before this Court by the learned HCGP is that the petitioner is involved in as many as 22 robbery cases and that he is a habitual offender. It is further argued that if the petitioner is let on bail, he is likely to terrorize the witnesses and he may not attend the Court regularly. Hence, he requests to dismiss the bail petition.
5. After perusing the records, it is seen that in most of the cases he has already been acquitted. This petitioner is already enlarged on bail in Crl.P.No.8602/2015 relating to Cr.No.100/2015. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. In fact, at the time of escape, the petitioner was injured. This is also to be taken into consideration for the limited purpose. The petitioner has undertaken to obey any conditions which may be imposed on him. Thus the apprehension of 4 the learned Government Pleader could be suitably addressed by imposing proper conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and bail is granted to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) He shall mark his attendance once in a week on every Sunday between 9.00 am to 5.00 p.m. before the jurisdictional police station without fail till the disposal of the case.
(iii) He shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
(iv) He shall not involve himself in any criminal activities;
5
(v) He shall appear on all dates of hearing before the Concerned Court, except under unavoidable circumstances.
(vi) If he violates any one of the conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE VM