Karnataka High Court
Shekar vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2020
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2740 of 2020
BETWEEN
SHEKAR,
S/O KADAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
RESIDING AT THALAKERI VILLAGE,
DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI,
TURUVEKERE TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 221.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MADANAYAKANA HALLI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME No.611 of 2019
OF MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, NOW REGISTERED
AS IN C.C.No.2103 of 2020 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 397 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, NOW PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, NELAMANGALA,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of bail in Crime No.611/2019 of Madanayakanahalli Police Station, now on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, in CC No.2103/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, on the complaint filed by one Ashok son of Sriramulu on 30.12.2019, the Police registered the case alleging that the complainant is doing mobile phone business in the name and style of 'Manujunatha Mobile Show Room' at Kadabagere Cross. He has also taken the agency of money transfer distributor in Pino Payments Bank and he used to collect money from 3 the retail shops and then deposit the same in the Bank. That on 29.12.2019, he had collected money from different shops at Anchepalya and other places and was returning to his house, as it was Sunday. In all, he had collected a sum of Rs.12.00 Lakh, kept it in a bag and then he and his sister Nandhini came to their house in a motorbike. At about 10.10 p.m., when he stopped his bike near the gate of his house, two unknown persons came from his back, assaulted him with iron rod on his head and snatched the bag from him and proceeded towards their car. At that time, the complainant and his sister shouted for help. The complainant reached the car with head injuries and by break opening the widow glass of the car, he took the car key, by that time, the accused persons ran away after the arrival of the neighbourers. Then the complainant was shifted to the hospital by the neighbourers and his sister. During the investigation, the Police arrested accused No.1 and recovered Rs.10,47,000/-. The Police also arrested this petitioner and after the investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet. The petitioner approached the Additional 4 District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in C.Crl.Misc.43/2020, which came to be rejected on 29.05.2020. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. The case was registered against unknown persons. During the investigation, the recovery was made from accused No.1 and there is no recovery made from this petitioner. The alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The investigation is already completed and charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Bangalore and is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for granting of bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader strenuously objected the bail petition and contended that both the petitioner and accused No.1 committed robbery by causing injuries to the complainant. There is a prima 5 facie case made out against this petitioner for having committed the offence. If the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to abscond and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, it shows that accused No.1 and this petitioner are said to have committed robbery and snatched the cash back from the complainant Ashok when he was trying to park the motorbike in front of his house after collecting money from various shops. During the investigation, the Police have arrested this petitioner and accused No.1. The Police have recovered Rs.10,47,000/- from accused No.1 on the voluntary statement. The Police have also seized the car, which was used by the accused for following the complainant. There is no recovery from this petitioner. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner is in custody since 31.12.2019 i.e. for more than 6½ months. The presence of the 6 petitioner is no more required. The alleged offence is though non-bailable and triable by the Sessions Court, but not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no bad antecedent of this petitioner and there is no material to show that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Considering all these aspects and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, by imposing certain condition if bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
Order The Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused No.2 shall be released on bail in Crime No.611/2019 of Madanayakanahalli Police Station, now on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, in CC No.2103/2020, subject to the following conditions;
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one laky only) with two sureties for the likesum to 7 the satisfaction of the Committal Court/Sessions Court, as the case may.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences.
iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without obtaining prior permission.
Sd/-
JUDGE mv