Karnataka High Court
Munikrishnan vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 October, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 2080
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5585 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
Munikrishnan
Aged about 45 years,
S/o. late Venkatswamy,
R/at No.58, 3rd Cross,
Ashokapuram, Near R.G.Royal,
Yashwanthpura, Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru - 560 022. ... Petitioner
(By Sri Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
by Nandagudi Police Station, Benagluru.
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Complex,
Bengaluru - 560 001. ... 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
Cr.No.86/2020 registered by Nandagudi Police
Station, Bengaluru District, for the offences
punishable under Sections 120-B, 342, 394, 420 read
with Section 34 of IPC.
-2-
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders
'through video conference' this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., to release him on bail in Crime No.86/2020 registered by Nandagudi Police Station (pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Hoskote, Bengaluru Rural District) for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 394, 420, 120B readh with Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi for petitioner-accused and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is doing import and export business and about three months back one Rajendra came in -3- contact and used to talk over the phone to the complainant in Tamil language. It is further alleged that on 31.08.2020, petitioner-accused called over the phone and intimated that he knows the owner of Volvo Company by name Suresh Reddy and he intimated to meet him regarding his business. A meeting has been arranged on 01.09.2020 at Yelachenahalli near Volvo factory and that the petitioner-accused informed the complainant, on the same day the meeting is arranged at 5.00 p.m. The complainant proceeded to the said place in car bearing registration No.TN 25 BB 7740 along with his friends at about 3.50 p.m., same has been informed to the petitioner-accused No.1 and he has informed that private cars are not allowed inside the factory and he would arrange a company car bearing registration No.KA 37 M 3713 it will come and pick up and he has to travel in the said car for some distance. After -4- boarding the car three persons came and entered into the car and they started assaulting the complainant and snatched his i-phone and cash of Rs.10,00,000/- and ran away from the said place. On these filed the complaint.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that the complainant is not known to the accused No.1 and even he has not scene the incident. It is his further submission that only on the basis of the statement of co-accused he has been inculcated in the said case. It is his further submission that at no point of time, the petitioner- accused has contacted the complainant and he is nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is his further submission that the alleged offences are not punishable with either death or imprisonment for life. There is a delay in filing the complaint. It is his further submission that the marriage of the daughter -5- has been fixed on 29.10.2020 and he being the elder member of the family he has to look after the family for the purpose of arrangements and he has to take care of his daughter. He is ready to abide by any of the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and to release petitioner-accused on bail
5. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner-accused is master mind in commission of the offence and the call details has been collected during the course of investigation. It is his further submission that during the course of investigation the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner-accused that itself clearly goes to show that the petitioner-accused is involved actively in the said crime. It is his further submitted that he is an habitual offender and he has not given -6- any correct address during the course of trial. If he is released on bail, he may abscond and he may not available for the trial. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and the allegations made, it indicates that the complainant has not scene the petitioner-accused No.1 and they have only contacted over the phone and in that light, a meeting has been arranged on 01.09.2020 and three persons came and they have taken him in a car bearing registration No.KA 37 M 3713 and they have also snatched his i-phone and a cash of Rs.10,00,000/-. Only because investigation is -7- pending at this juncture it cannot be held that the petitioner-accused is having master mind and he is behind the entire scene. The alleged offences are not punishable with either death or imprisonment for life. Even the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner- accused has been fixed on 29.10.2020. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that if by imposing some stringent conditions, petitioner-accused if ordered to be enlarged on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice. In that light, the petition is allowed.
8. Petitioner-accused No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.86/2020 registered by Nandagudi Police Station (pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Hoskote, Bengaluru Rural District) for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 394, 420, 120B read -8- with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions;
i) Petitioner-accused No.1 shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii) He shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence directly or
indirectly.
iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the Court without prior permission.
iv) He shall mark his attendance before
the jurisdictional police once in a
month in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00
p.m. till the trial is completed.
v) He shall not indulge in similar type of
criminal activities. If he again indulge in similar type of criminal activities or violates any one of the condition, the trial Court is at liberty to cancel the bail.
-9-
vi) He shall regularly attend the trial. In view of the disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2020 for interim bail does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2020 stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE GJM