Karnataka High Court
Sri Shantharaju vs State Of Karnataka By on 13 July, 2016
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4519 OF 2016
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4385 OF 2016
IN CRL.P.No.4519/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.SHANTHARAJU
S/O. APPAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCCUPATION: BUSSINESS
R/O. NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE
VEERSANDRA, ATTIBELE HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUKA - 562 107
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
2. SRI.YOGESH
S/O. MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
OCCUPATION:BUSINESS
PRESENTLY R/OF, C/O SURESH BUILDING
PATEL HANUMAREDDY LAYOUT
NEAR GMR APARTMENT
GOLLAHALLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562 158
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
3. SRI. PRAKASH
S/O. RAVI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT NO.4, VENKATESHWAR REDDY LAYOUT
PRAGATHIAGAR ROAD
NEAR D.S.MAX APARTMENT
HOSA ROAD
2
BANGALORE - 560 056
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.M.T.NANAIAH, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI.CHAMARAJ.M, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C.PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.328/2016 OF
HEBBAGODI P.S.,BENGALURU DISTRICT, FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 364(A) OF IPC.
IN CRL.P.No.4385/2016:
BETWEEN:
SRI.KESHAVAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O. THAMMEGOWDA
RESIDING AT NO.334
AKRUTHI GREEN WOODS
SWAMY VIVEKANANDA KUTIRA ROAD
JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK
PIN - 562 107
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.T.NANAIAH.SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI.RAVISHANKAR.T.P, ADV.,)
3
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
PIN - 560 020
REPRESENTED BY;
THE LEARNED SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C.PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.328/2016 OF
HEBBAGODI P.S., BANGALORE DISTRICT., FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 364(A) OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner in Crl.P.No.4385/2016 is arraigned as accused No.1, whereas the petitioners in Crl.P.No.4519/2016 are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 4 in connection with Crime No.328/2016 for the offence under Section 364-A of IPC on the file of the respondent police.
4
2. The factual matrix that emanate from the record is that the complainant is non other than the brother of one Sri.Vinod Kumar. He lodged a complaint on 25.05.2016 in the early hours of 4.00 am., stating that his brother Sri.Vinod Kumar was doing some financial business and he had some financial transactions with all the accused persons. In this background it is alleged that on 24.05.2016 the accused persons have kidnapped Sri.Vinod Kumar, brother of the complainant for the purpose of extorting ransom amount from him. Said person was kidnapped from Veerasandra village. After receiving the complaint, police have registered a case and started investigating the matter. Infact the police have arrested the accused persons and recovered the said person Vinod Kumar. On 25.05.2016 itself at about 1.30 pm, the said person also gave a statement before the police, specifically stating that he has been having the money transactions with the accused 5 persons. He was due to pay some amount to the accused persons. In this context they took the victim along with them and demanded Rs.10.00 lakhs. On these allegations police have arrested the accused persons on 26.05.2016 and they interrogated the accused persons and remanded to judicial custody.
3. Though the offence under Section 364A is punishable with imprisonment for life, nevertheless, it is not compulsorily punishable with imprisonment for life.
4. Looking to the nature of allegation and gravity of the offence, no damage has been done to anybody. Admittedly, there was money transactions between the victim and the accused persons. What transpired between them has to be established by the prosecution during the trial. The petitioners have been already arrested and in judicial custody since 26.05.2016. The trial also may take sufficient time. 6
5. Under the above said factual circumstances, of the case, in my opinion, the petitioners are to be entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to certain stringent conditions. Hence, the following;
ORDER
6. The petitions are allowed. Consequently the petitioners shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.328/2016 registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 364A of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in
hampering the investigation or
tampering prosecution witnesses.7
iii) The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by any genuine cause.
iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission till the case registered against them is disposed of.
v) The petitioners shall also mark their attendance once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the final report is submitted, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH