Karnataka High Court
Mr. Sanjeev Bhimappa Vajantri vs Statet Of Karnataka By on 13 March, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100259/2018
C/W.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100334/2018
IN CRL.P.NO.100259/2018
BETWEEN:
1. LAXMAN S/O MALLESHAPPA HALYAL,
AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
R/O. NAVALUR, DHARWAD.
2. HANUMANTAPPA S/O. BALVANTAPPA KADADI,
AGE:38 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
R/O. GOVANKOPPA, DHARWAD.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.T.R.PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
DHARWAD RURAL P.S.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ANAND K NAVALAGIMATH, HCGP.)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.
1380/2017 (ARISING OUT OF DHARWAD RURAL P.S.CRIME
NO.35/2017) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II JMFC, DHARWD,
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 118, 120(B)
R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 25 OF ARMS ACT.
IN CRL.P.NO.100334/2018
BETWEEN:
MR.SANJEEV BHIMAPPA VAJANTRI,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O NAGARKAR COLONY, DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.N.D.GUNDE, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY DHARWAD RURAL POLICE,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ANAND K NAVALAGIMATH, HCGP.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.1380/2017
PENDING BEFORE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD ON
THE FILE OF DHARWAD RURAL POLICE BEING TRIED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 25 OF INDIAN ARMS
ACT, 1860 AND SECTION 118, 120B R/W. 34 OF IPC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
These two petitions are filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in Crime No.35/2017 registered by the respondent-police under Sections 120B and 118 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of Indian Arms Act.
2. The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. The investigation is already completed and the charge sheet is laid. The prosecution was initiated based on the complaint lodged by the CPI, Dharwad alleging that on 21.02.2017 he received an audio C.D. which disclosed that the accused herein along with accused No.4 were hatching a plan to commit the murder of the accused involved in the murder of brother of accused no.4. Based on the said complaint, investigation was taken up. The petitioners herein were arrested. In the course of investigation, a country pistol and bullets were recovered from the possession of accused No.4.
4
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that accused No.4 is already enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.101480/2017 dated 21.08.2017. No specific accusations are made against the petitioners except that they agreed to commit the murder of the murderer of Yogeshgowda. The investigation having been completed, the custody of the petitioners is not necessary to be extended and further the prime accused himself having been enlarged on bail, even on parity the petitioners are entitled for bail.
4. Learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He contends that the accusations made against the petitioners are serious in nature. There is likelihood of the petitioners threatening or prevailing upon the witnesses and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to be enlarged on bail until the conclusion of the trial.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the charge sheet papers and the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition 5 No.101480/2017, I am of the view that the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail.
6. On perusal of the records, it is seen that except the voluntary statements attributed to the petitioners, no other prima facie material are placed on record by the prosecution. The offence under Section 120B of IPC is required to established only during the trial. For the said purpose, the custody of the petitioners is not required to be extended. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petitions are allowed.
ii) The petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.35/2017 of Dharwad Rural Police Station on furnishing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
iii) The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court as and when required.
6
iv) The petitioners shall not threaten or lure the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence.
v) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sh