Karnataka High Court
Yellam Gouda vs The State on 13 September, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200968/2017
BETWEEN:
YELLAM GOUDA
S/O ANJAYYA GOUDA
AGE: 29 YEARS,
R/O IMAMBAD, MANDALA
SIDDIPET TALUKA, MEDAK DIST.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: NANDKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE THROUGH
HUMANABAD P.S.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL.
SPP HCKB AT KALABURAGI
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: P.S.PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.91/2010 OF HUMNABAD P.S., FOR
THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 395 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 25 OF ARMS ACT (S.C.NO.188/2017) ON THE
2
FILE OF THE II ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR
SITTING AT HUMNABAD.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
2. The petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking bail in FIR No.91/2010 (S.C.No.188/2017) of Humnabad police station, Bidar. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Section 395 of IPC and Section 25 of Indian Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.02.2010 at about 10.30 p.m. when the complainant and his family members were proceeding in a car bearing No.KA-38/4932 at that time, the accused 3 persons stopped the car and shown the knife to the complainant and his family members.
4. The complainant and his family members alighted from the car and accused persons tied the cloth on the face of the complainant and took him and family members to Sadalapur forest area and snatched golden ornaments and committed dacoit. Thus, the complaint came to be registered against the accused persons.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the earlier the petitioner was on bail by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.No.231/2012 on 30.05.2012 and thereafter, he did not appear on the regular date of hearing in S.C.No.35/2016 due to the fracture injury to his spinal card and hence he remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner has submitted the medical report during the course of argument before the trial Court.
4
6. The learned HCGP opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and there is split up charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner.
7. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 29.06.2017 and the earlier bail application filed by the petitioner before the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bidar sitting at Humnabad came to be rejected.
8. In the context and circumstances, it is to be seen that the investigation is completed and the police have filed the final report. The petitioner was under the benefit of bail prior to arrest in the case. Moreover, he has stated his health conditions because of which he has not appeared before the Court.
9. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that there was no likelihood of interference to the 5 investigation by the accused/petitioner by virtue of he being in judicial custody.
10. Thus, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution or its case if the petitioner is enlarged on bail. However, the apprehension of the prosecution could be resolved by imposing suitable conditions.
11. Accordingly, the petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:
a) Petitioner shall be released on bail in FIR No.91/2010 (S.C.No.188/2017) for the offences punishable under Section 395 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
b) He shall not tamper or terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner.6
c) He shall not come into contact with any of the prosecution witnesses.
d) He shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 8.00 PM to 9.00 PM till further orders by the Trial Court.
e) He shall not leave the State of Karnataka without prior permission from the trial Court.
If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srt