Karnataka High Court
Dadapeera S/O Peeresab vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
CRL.P.No.100993/2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100993/2018
BETWEEN:
DADAPEERA @ DADA S/O PEERASAB
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC,
R/O: MUNNABAYI PLAT, HONNALLI ROAD,
GUGGARHATTI, DIST: BALLARI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA AND
SRI. B.C. JNANYYASWAMI, ADVOCATES)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(THORUGH KOPPAL RURAL POLICE STATION),
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/
ACCUSED NO.4 ON BAIL IN (SC NO.15/2016) IN
CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.135/2014 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOPPAL
(REGISTERED IN KOPPAL RURAL POLICE STATION) FOR THE
OFFENCES U/S.392, 394, 398 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,
PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE.
CRL.P.No.100993/2018
:2:
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth for brevity referred to as "Cr.P.C.,") praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.4 on bail in S.C. No.15/2016 pending on the file of District and Sessions Judge at Koppal (registered in Crime No.135/2014 of respondent police station) for the offences under Sections 392, 394, 398 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth for brevity referred to as "IPC") pending trial of the case.
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution as could be gathered from the material placed before this Court is that, on the night of 04.07.2014 at about 11.30 p.m., the present petitioner joined by other accused committed theft of two motorcycles and making use of the said motorcycles, went to Munirabad, where near Jai Hind Dhaba, several lorries were parked. Those accused entered CRL.P.No.100993/2018 :3: the driver's cabin of those lorries and threatening the drivers and cleaners slept in the lorry on dire consequences and putting them under life threat by showing them knife and other deadly weapons, robbed them of cell phones and the cash amounts, which they were possessing. The present petitioner is said to have robbed the driver of a lorry, which driver is arrayed as charge sheet witness No.7.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that the police have filed a false charge sheet against the accused. It is only to improve the statistics of the police station, the police are repeatedly dragging the innocent persons.
4. Learned Government Pleader in his arguments has submitted that the present petitioner is said to have involved in many similar crimes, as such, he is a habitual criminal. Therefore, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
CRL.P.No.100993/2018:4:
5. A perusal of the charge sheet papers at this stage prima facie go to show that the accused were stopping the lorries and then used to wake up the sleeping drivers and cleaners and rob them. The said statement made in the charge sheet poses some difficulty in understanding as to how come after stopping a moving lorry the accused can find the driver sleeping in it. However, the allegation is about the alleged robbery of different lorries by the accused. The said aspect of the alleged recoveries said to have been made at the instance of the accused and the alleged act of the accused in robbing the drivers of the lorry has to be ascertained only after conducting a full-fledged trial.
6. At this juncture, it is further shown that, from 08.07.2014 till date i.e., more than four years the accused is in judicial custody. Considering the nature of the offence and the period of judicial custody the accused/petitioner has undergone and also of the fact that even according to the prosecution, the charge sheet CRL.P.No.100993/2018 :5: long back has been filed by the investigating officer, as such, continuation of the accused in judicial custody cannot be of very much necessary. As such, I am of the view that, imposing reasonable conditions, the accused/petitioner be enlarged on bail.
7. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The petitioner be enlarged on bail in S.C. No.15/2016 pending on the file of District and Sessions Judge at Koppal (registered in Crime No.135/2014 of respondent police station) for the offences under Sections 392, 394, 398 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of `30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with two local sureties, with proof of his address and to the satisfaction of the enlarging Court.
(ii) The petitioner to give in writing about the change in his address, if any, to the Investigating Officer CRL.P.No.100993/2018 :6: as and when such change occurs and obtain acknowledgement in that regard.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing.
(iv) The petitioner shall not tamper or hamper the prosecution witnesses and documents.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/yan