Karnataka High Court
Raju S/O Venkateshappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 April, 2022
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100307/2022
BETWEEN:
1. RAJU S/O VENKATESHAPPA KORCHAR
AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER
R/O. MACHALLI KORACHORAHATTI
VILLAGE
TQ. HARAPPANAHALLI
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583131
2. GONEPPA S/O. GOUDAR MARIYAPPA
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER
R/O. YALLAPUR VILLAGE
TQ. HARAPPANAHALLI
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583131
...PETITIONERS.
(BY SHRI SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
THROUGH MUNIRABAD POLICE
STATION, KOPPAL-580011
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP.)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, SEEKING TO GRANT
REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2/ACCUSED NO.1
AND ACCUSED NO.4 IN MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION CRIME
NO.191/2021, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 395, 397 OF IPC AND SECTION 25(1) (A) OF
ARMS ACT, ETC.,.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 29.3.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to enlarge the petitioners no.1 and 2 who are arraigned as accused nos.1 and 4, on regular bail, in Crime No.191/2021 of Munirabad Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under sections 395, 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Koppal.
2. It is stated that accused no.3 K.Kenchappa contacted complainant S.B.Vivek, resident of Shivanagar, Bidar, through phone and introduced him to one Ramesh of Molakalmuru and informed him that while digging foundation of his house gold coins have been traced and he 3 will give them to a reasonable price and informed to come to Khanalli village. Accordingly on 2.8.2021 the complainant came there and accused nos.1 to 6 together shown two gold coins and asked the complainant to verify and come with money. Accused no.3 again contacted him over mobile phone and informed him to come with money to purchase gold coins. Accordingly the complainant and his friend Jaibhim on 5.8.2021 at 7.00 a.m. came in Innova Car near Budugumpa cross with cash. Then they called Ramesh, who came along with five persons on motorcycles. Then accused no.2 boarded the Innova car and they took the complainant to Kukanahalli cross and stopped the vehicle and got down from vehicle. Accused nos.2 and 3 gave 620 fake gold coins. Complainant found that they are fake coins and refused to purchase them. It is further alleged that all the accused caught hold complainant and tried to snatch the bag, when he resisted, accused no.2 showed chopper to the complainant and threatened him. Accused no.1 assaulted on his face with hands and snatched the bag containing cash of 4 Rs.17,10,000/- and also mobile phone and assaulted him and all of the accused ran away on the bikes.
3. It is further alleged that on 5.8.2021 at about 11.00 a.m. CW.19-Veeresh, PSI and CW.20-Basavaraj, ASI of Alawandi Police Station were on patrolling duty to trace the culprits involved in theft and robbery cases. They were checking the suspected vehicles moving at Kampli cross, at that time accused came on motorcycle, on suspecting their movement police stopped the accused persons and enquired their names. When they did not give proper information about their names and identity, on suspicion the police opened the bag, they found Rs.17,02,500/- and two mobile phones. At that time accused nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 by leaving the bag and motorcycle along with accused nos.4 and 6 ran away in the neighbouring land and escaped. Thereafter a case came to be registered under section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Then the complainant coming to know about seizure of bag and cash through media on 8.8.2021 went to the police station and lodged his complaint. Thereafter the case under section 5 397 of IPC and under section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act came to be registered. It is further alleged that accused nos.1, 3 and 4 were arrested on 9.8.2021. Then after completing the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. The application filed by the petitioner for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence they filed this petition.
4. Heard Shri Shrinivas B. Naik, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Girija Hiremath, the learned HCGP for the respondent State and perused the material on record.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that these petitioners are coolies. The complainant is residing about 300 kilometers away from their native place. The story is cooked up by the police in collusion with the complainant. The learned counsel argued that even though the incident stated to have occurred on 5.8.2021, the complainant and CW.2 have not lodged any complaint till 8.8.2021. So the delay itself show that the complaint has been manipulated against these petitioners. There is 6 no material to invoke provisions of Arms Act. It is also argued that no money is recovered from the possession of these petitioners. It is also alleged that only accused no.2 was armed with chopper and money is stated to have recovered from the possession of accused no.2. The learned counsel also argued that as the investigation is completed, they are no more required for investigation. The petitioners are in judicial custody from 10.8.2021. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence the learned counsel argued to allow the petition as they are ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.
6. Against this, the learned HCGP argued that the alleged offence is heinous one. These petitioners have committed robbery in the guise of seeking gold coins. All of them have threatened and snatched the amount from the possession of the complainant. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail, then they may repeat the said offence. They may run away from this State or they may threaten the prosecution witnesses and may not appear before the 7 Court and looking into the nature of the offence and material placed before the Court, the petitioners are not entitled for bail. Hence the learned HCGP argued to reject the bail petition.
7. I have perused the petition averments and the material on record. Admittedly earlier the case was registered by the police against unknown persons for the offence punishable under section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act. It is stated that they could recover the money, all the accused ran away and it is evident that subsequently the complaint came to be lodged on 8.8.2021. It is evident that admittedly the alleged offences are not punishable with death. It is evident that as per the prosecution papers the money was seized from the possession of accused no.2. Even the chopper was also held by accused no.2. The complainant has not sustained any injuries. The vehicle is also seized and investigation is already completed. It is also evident that no such criminal cases are either filed or pending against these petitioners. Admittedly the offence under section 395 is punishable 8 with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for ten years and the offence under section 397 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for not less than seven years. It is only based on the voluntary statement, these petitioners are included.
8. It is settled principle of law that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. While granting or rejecting the bail application, the Court will have to take into consideration, (1) the nature and seriousness of the offence;
(2) character of the accused;
(3) circumstances which are peculiar to accused;
(4) reasonable probabilities of presence of the accused not being secured at trial;
(5) reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; and (6) larger interest of public or the state and similar other considerations, which arise when a court is asked to admit the accused to bail in a non-bailable offence. 9
9. So, in view of the material placed before the Court and as the investigation is already completed and as no incriminating articles are recovered at the instance or possession of these petitioners, and they are ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Taking into consideration the material placed on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view the petitioners have made out sufficient ground to allow the petition.
10. The apprehension of the prosecution can be meted out by imposing reasonable conditions on the petitioners. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioners no.1 and 2/accused nos.1 and 4, in Crime No.191/2021 of Munirabad Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under sections 395, 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, pending on the file of Prl. 10 Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Koppal, shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions.
i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each with a two sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court or the committal Court where the case is pending.
ii) The petitioners shall not try to tamper and
threaten the prosecution witnesses
directly or indirectly.
iii) The petitioners shall furnish proof of their residential correct address and shall inform the Court/Investigating Officer if there is any change in the address.
iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court.
v) The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal activities and shall not commit similar offences.
vi) The petitioners shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing without fail 11 as and when directed, unless they are exempted for the reasons assigned.
In case if any of the condition is violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mrk/-