Mr. Satpal Singh vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr. Satpal Singh vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2022

Bench: H.P. Sandesh

                           1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                        BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3209/2022

BETWEEN

MR. SATPAL SINGH
S/O OMPAL SINGH CHAWHAN
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT KASAN VILLAGE
MANESAR TALUK, GURGANON
HARIYANA-122011
                                              ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SYED JAFFER MOHIYUDDIN, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VINOBANAAGARA POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA, KARNATAKA
REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001
                                            ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CRIME NO.17/2021 OF VINOBANAGARA POLICE STATION,
SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 454, 380 OF IPC AND ETC.
                                    2



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                              ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.17/2021 of Vinobanagara Police Station, Shivamogga for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 23.01.2021, CW1 to 3 were went to Bengaluru and on 29.01.2021, their neighbour informed them that door of their house was broken and when returned at 7.30 p.m., they saw that 103 grams of gold worth of Rs.4,12,000/- and Rs.20,000/- cash was got robbed. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and at the time of investigation, they recovered 10 grams of gold and also seized the car bearing No.RJ45-CM-8315 and remaining gold was sold by the petitioner to unknown persons 3 and that on 02.03.2021, the police came to know that this petitioner is in juridical custody in Cr.No.59/2021 for the similar offences and hence, he was taken to the custody by issuing body warrant and charge sheet has been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner was in custody in connection with other crimes at Rajasthan and this petitioner was secured through body warrant and recovery was made at his instance and there is no need of custodial trial and the alleged offences are also not punishable with death or life imprisonment and this petitioner has been falsely implicated in several cases invoking the very same offences and prayed to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that there are 61 cases against this petitioner and out of that there are 4 cases in Karnataka which is registered at Karwar as well as Shivamogga and when the recovery was made at the instance of this petitioner, there are prima facie case against him and if he enlarged on bail there are chances of fleeing away from the 4 justice and prayed to dismiss the petition. In reply to the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner has not been convicted in any cases except registration of series of cases against him.

6. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the material available on record it discloses that the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State has furnished the details of 61 cases which were registered against this petitioner out of that there are four cases registered in Karnataka and maximum cases are registered at Gurgaon and the counsel for the petitioner also admitted that there are series of cases against this petitioner but he has not convicted in any cases. Having taken note of the fact that this petitioner is an habitual offender and similar offences are invoked against him invoking Section 454 and 380 of IPC hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.

7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER The bail petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE SN

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court