Jagadesh @ Jagga vs State Of Karnataka on 8 November, 2017

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Jagadesh @ Jagga vs State Of Karnataka on 8 November, 2017

Bench: R.B Budihal

                              1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
   DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
                           BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8036/2017

BETWEEN:

Jagadesh @ Jagga
S/o Srinivas
Aged about 27 years
Anupanahalli Village
Aregujjanahalli Post
Hudugere Hobli
Tumkur Taluk
Tumkur District-572 101.                   ... PETITIONER

(By Sri Ambarish K N, Adv.)

AND:

State of Karnataka
Represented by Electronic City Police Station
Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor
High Court
Bangalore-560 001.                         ...RESPONDENT

(By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP)

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.112/2014 (S.C.No.79/2017) of Electronic City P.S.,
Bangalore City, for the offences P/U/Ss 448, 394, 427,
                              2



506(B) read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25(1)(A) and
27 of ARMS Act.

      This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:

                         ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 394, 427, 506(b) r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act registered in respondent - police station Crime No.112/2014 now pending in Sessions Case No.79/2017 on the file of 9th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.4 and also the 3 learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.4 during the course of his arguments submitted that there is no prima facie material produced by the prosecution about his involvement in the case. It is only on the basis of the voluntary statement of other accused the present petitioner has been arrayed in the case. Accuse Nos.1 to 3 have been already granted bail. Hence, on the ground of parity, the present petitioner is also entitled to be granted with bail. He has also submitted that in another case booked against the petitioner, the witnesses who have been examined before the Court have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. On these grounds, he submitted that petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 4

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that release of accused Nos.1 to 3 is not on merits, but it is a default bail as per Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail application of this petitioner has observed that he is involved in many other cases. Petitioner is a habitual offender. Now the case is for trial. At this stage, if he is released on bail, he may put hurdles in the progress of the case and may involve in committing the similar offences.

5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

6. The ground of parity cannot be made applicable to the present petitioner because the bail 5 order in respect of accused Nos.1 to 3 is not on merits, but, it is a default bail order invoking Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The trial Court in its order has observed that petitioner is a habitual offender involved in many other cases. This observation is supported by the material produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of S.C.No.408/2015 that witnesses in the said case have not supported the case of the prosecution. This prima facie shows the involvement of the petitioner in other criminal cases also. It is submitted that now the case is ripe for trial and at this stage if the petitioner is released on bail there is every likelihood of petitioner absconding and putting hurdles in further progress of the case and he may involve in committing similar offences in future also. The alleged offences are also under the provisions of Arms Act. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, petition is rejected. However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is in custody since 3 ½ years i.e., from the date of his arrest, the concerned Sessions Judge is directed to take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the same as early as possible.

Sd/-

JUDGE bkp

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court