Karnataka High Court
Dhananjaya. G vs State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9018 /2017
BETWEEN:
Dhananjaya G
Aged about 36 years
S/o Sri Gantalappa
R/at No.101, 2nd Floor, 'Devi Nilaya'
Cambridge Garden, Ayyappa Nagar
K.R. Puram
Bengaluru-560 036. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri Satyanarayana Chalke S, Adv.)
AND:
State of Karnataka
Represented by the Station House Officer
Whitefield Police Station
Bengaluru District
Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru-560 001. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in
Cr.No.401/2017 of Whitefield P.S., Bangalore for the
offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC.
2
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following :
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail for the offences punishable under Section 384 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.401/2017.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Dashrath reddy was a contractor and that he had obtained the contract for construction of building from M/s JMC belongs to Brookfield and that when he was doing earth work in the said place, on 25.10.2017 @ 12:15 p.m., one Sudhama Naik, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Whitefield Sub-Division visited the spot along with five police personnel and did galata with the labourers and engineers at the spot alleging that they were using explosive materials for digging the earth and that, in connection with the said incident, the petitioner, 3 who was attached to the squad of the ACP, Whitefield Sub-Division demanded an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- which was later settled for Rs.15,00,000/- to which he agreed to avoid further complications and harassment by the police and that he paid an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs on 25.10.2017 and Rs.4 lakhs on 26.10.2017 through his friends Narayana Reddy, Shankar, Shankar Reddy outside the Mahadevapura Police Station, which was confirmed by him by calling the petitioner on his mobile phone, who accepted receipt of the same and that he had enclosed the recorded conversation along with the complaint and sought for action to be initiated against the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint, case came to be registered for the said offence.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made submission that on the date of alleged incident, the 4 petitioner was not at all present on the spot and therefore, the question of demanding money does not arise. The petitioner took his father to the hospital as his father was not keeping well. The learned Counsel submitted that therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.
5. Learned HCGP made submission that the conversation between the petitioner and the complainant over mobile phone was recorded and even looking to the said conversation, it goes to show the demand made by the petitioner of the alleged amount and also accepting the said amount. Hence, there is prima facie material available against the petitioner and therefore, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
6. Looking to the grounds urged in the bail petition, the petitioner has denied all the allegations and contended that he is innocent and he has not involved in committing the alleged offence. The petitioner has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any condition 5 that may be imposed by this Court. It is further contended that the alleged offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate and it is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, I am of the opinion, the petitioner can be admitted to bail by imposing reasonable conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Section 384 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.401/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and have to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.6
iii. Petitioner shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-