Karnataka High Court
Ambadas vs State Of Karnataka on 16 April, 2019
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200196/2019
Between:
Ambadas
S/o Chandrappa Honnale
Age: 27 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Sultanabad Wadi village
Tq. Humnabad
Dist. Bidar-585 401
... Petitioner
(By Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, Advocate for
Sri Santosh Annappa & Sri S.N.Patil, Advocates)
And:
State of Karnataka through
Hallikhed (B) Police Station
Tq. Humnabad, Dist. Bidar
Represented by Addl. SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench-585 101
... Respondent
(By Sri P.S.Patil, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.170/2018 (C.C.No.658/2018) of Hallikhed Police Station,
2
for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 397 r/w
Section 34 of IPC, pending before JMFC, Humnabad.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
This bail petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to grant regular bail to the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.170/2018 of Hallikhed Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 397, 450, 451 of IPC.
2. Factual matrix of the petition are as under:
It is transpired from the complaint that the complainant is working as driver of lorry belonging to one B.Bhaskar Reddy. On 10.09.2018, he left Nellore town along with lorry loaded with centering material and reached Udgir town in Maharashtra wherein he unloaded the centering material. He again left Udgir town loaded with Tur dal. On 18.09.2018 at about 7.30 3 p.m., when he was proceeding towards Humnabad and when he was about 200 mtrs., away from Khatak Chincholi cross, four unknown persons said to be culprits came from opposite direction and waylaid his lorry. Out of four persons, two persons entered his lorry cabin and one person entered his lorry from right door and showing knife point extended life threat to the complainant and insisted him to give money. The other accused persons are said to have assaulted by means of hands. On searching the pocket of the complainant, they found Rs.200/- and the same was robbed by the accused persons. Subsequent to filing of the complaint, a case in Crime No.170/2018 came to be registered and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid chargesheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 397, 450 and 451 of IPC.4
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent and perused the records of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has contended that the petitioner is innocent person and he has not at all committed the alleged offences. There is no overt-act attributed against this petitioner/accused in committing the alleged offences. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have already been released on bail by this Court in Criminal petition No.200180/2019 dated 15.02.2019. This accused and the accused who have already been released on bail stand on the similar footing. Therefore, the principle of parity be extended to this accused also. It is further contended that an amount of Rs.200/- said to have been robbed from the complainant has been recovered from the possession of accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 during 5 the course of investigation. It is also contended that the petitioner hails from a respectable family and having respect in the eye of society and moreover, the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court while granting him bail. On these grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for enlarging the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State submitted that, as per the complaint averments, this accused has also participated along with other accused in the alleged crime. Merely because accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have been enlarged on bail, it cannot be said that the principles of parity requires to be extended to this accused also. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recovered an amount of Rs.200/- from the possession of accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 and so also seized the weapon said to have been used 6 by the accused. Therefore, the petitioner is not deserving for bail. On these grounds, the learned High Court Government Pleader is seeking for dismissal of the bail petition.
6. Having regard to the strenuous contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State are concerned, it is relevant to state that the complainant is working as driver of lorry belonging to one B.Bhaskar Reddy. On 10.09.2018, he left Nellore town along with lorry loaded with centering material and reached Udgir town in Maharashtra wherein he unloaded the centering material. He again left Udgir town loaded with Tur dal. On 18.09.2018 at about 7.30 p.m., when he was proceeding towards Humnabad, and when he was about 200 mtrs., away from Khatak Chincholi cross, four unknown persons said to be culprits came from opposite direction and waylaid his 7 lorry. Out of four persons, two persons entered his lorry cabin and one person entered his lorry from right door and showing knife point extended life threat to the complainant and insisted him to give money. The other accused persons are said to have assaulted by means of hands. On searching the pocket of the complainant, they found Rs.200/- and the same was robbed by the accused persons. Subsequent to filing of the complaint, a case in Crime No.170/2018 came to be registered. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid chargesheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences by recording the statement of witnesses and also conducting mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses. Therefore, it is said that, at this stage, it does not require any detail discussion while considering the bail petition filed by the accused as there are substances in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in seeking relief of bail. The apprehension expressed by the learned High 8 Court Government Pleader that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would come in the way of prosecution case and would destroy the evidence, could be curtailed by imposing suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, as well as under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner/accused is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed subject to the following conditions.
1. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court where the case in 9 S.C.No.46/2019 arising out of C.C.No.658/2018 is pending;
2. The petitioner shall not tamper or hamper the prosecution witnesses.
3. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bidar District without prior permission from the competent Court of law.
4. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court of law on all the dates of hearing without fail.
5. The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth.
If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the bail order shall automatically stand ceased.
SD/-
JUDGE NB*