Karnataka High Court
Dayanand S/O Siddappa Hosamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200440/2022
Between:
Dayanand S/o Siddappa Hosamani,
Age: 21 years, Occ: Coolie,
R/o. Babaleshwar Village, Tq: Sindagi,
Dist: Vijayapura-586 128.
... Petitioner
(By Sri R.S.Lagali, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka,
Through the SHO, Sindagi PS.,
Represented by the
Addl. State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench-585 103.
... Respondent
(By Sri H.S.Shankar, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to allow this bail petition and thereby
order the release of the petitioner on bail in Sessions Case
No.156/2021 (Arising out of Sindagi PS, FIR (Crime)
No.221/2020) pending on the file of II-Addl. Sessions
Court, Vijayapura for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 398, 393, 427, 201 IPC.
2
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.221/2020 of Sindagi Police Station, pending in S.C.No.156/2021 on the file of II-Additional Sessions Court, Vijayapura, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 398, 393, 427, 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Rakesh Purohit.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, informant- Rakesh Purohit, Branch Manager of ICICI Bank, Sindagi, lodged first information with Sindagi Police on 25.08.2020 against three unknown persons alleging about an attempt to rob ATM machine, causing the death of the security guard and requested the police to register the case and to trace out the culprits. Accordingly, the police have registered the case and took up investigation. It is stated 3 that now the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 and the juvenile offender, for the above said offences.
3. Heard Sri R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.S.Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. Initially, FIR Was registered against unknown persons. Even though charge sheet is filed, no overt-act is attributed against the petitioner. On the other hand, it is only stated that he was having watch and ward outside the ATM centre. Specific allegations are made against accused No.1 and juvenile offender for causing the death of the security guard and trying to rob ATM machine with the help of crowbar and 4 hammer. It is specifically stated that accused No.1 had brought weapons with an intention to rob the ATM machine. It is only on the basis of the voluntary statement of the juvenile offender, the petitioner is falsely implicated. The statements of CWs.20 and 21 disclose that Bar and Pan-shop owners have referred to the so called confessional statement said to have been given by the juvenile offender under the influence of alcohol. None of the witnesses have identified the petitioner. There is no recovery from this petitioner. Petitioner was apprehended on 22.10.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. Investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, detention of the petitioner is not required for any other purpose, except to ensure his presence before the trial Court. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Even though FIR was registered against unknown persons, juvenile offender made confession about causing of death of the security guard, before CWs.20 and 21. CWs.15 to 18 have seen the accused wearing monkey cap and proceeding near the scene of occurrence. The Investigating Officer has collected incriminating materials. Even though they could not rob the ATM machine or money, the accused were managed to cause the death of the security guard by hitting his head with hammer. Taking into consideration the nature and seriousness of the offence which is punishable either with death or imprisonment for life, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6
6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
7. The allegations made against the accused are of serious nature. FIR was registered against unknown persons. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 and the juvenile offender. It is the specific contention of prosecution that accused No.1 with an intention to rob ATM machine brought crowbar and hammer and took assistance of accused Nos.2 and the juvenile offender. While accused No.2 was stationed outside the bank having watch and ward, the juvenile offender accompanied accused No.1 and caused the death of the security guard. It was accused No.1 who 7 disconnected the electricity to prevent his image being captured in C.C.TV camera. Since there was alarm, accused fled from the spot without robbing the money.
Admittedly, investigation is completed and there is no recovery at the instance of the petitioner. None of the prosecution witnesses have specifically identified the petitioner. Under these circumstances, I do not find any reason to detain the petitioner. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement of his valuable right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.
8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.8
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.221/2020 of Sindagi Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:
a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.
b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.
In case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.
On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties 9 and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*