Karnataka High Court
Pitla Mahesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2019
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200334/2019
BETWEEN:
Pitla Mahesh S/o Moses
Age: 28 Years, Occ: Coolie
R/o Kapparalthhippa
Tq. Kavali, Dist. Nellore
- Petitioner
(By Sri Ishwaraj S. Chowdapur, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Through West Police Station
Raichur
Represented by
Addl. State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench
- Respondent
(By Sri P.S. Patil, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to allow the bail petition
and release the petitioner on bail in Crime No.82/2016
(C.C.No.1790/2017) of Raichur West P.S., for the offences
punishable under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC, pending
before the II Addl. JMFC, Raichur.
2
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
This bail petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.82/2016 of Raichur West Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC. This petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.3 in the original charge-sheet filed in C.C.No.2126/2016, whereas in the split up charge sheet filed in C.C.No.1790/2017 arraigned as accused No.2 arouse in Crime No.82/2016. Since from the date of the arrest, the petitioner is in judicial custody and hence learned counsel prays for enlarging the petitioner on bail among the grounds urged therein.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the records. 3
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
From the material available on record it is seen that on 02.04.2016, the complainant and his friends withdrawn Rs.63,00,000/- from SBI Bank and ICICI Bank. After withdrawal, the said amount was kept in two bags in Car bearing No.KA-36-N-5930, thereafter all of them went to hotel S.P. Dolfin for having lunch by parking the car by the side of Hotel Priya by locking all the glasses of the car doors. After having meal, they came back to the car and noticed that the glass of the right side car was found broken and money kept in bags were missing. Subsequently, the case has been registered at around 4.00 p.m. on the same day. Thereafter, investigation officer taken up the case for investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused in C.C.No.2126/2016. Since the accused Nos.1, 3, 4 to 7 absconding case was split up against them and investigation officer thereafter laid the Split up charge sheet in C.C.No.1790/2017.4
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument that this petitioner has been secured under body warrant, issued in the aforesaid case on 04.12.2018 and presence of the petitioner secured from the Central Jail, Maharashtra before the Court as where the case is pending against him. The allegation made against this petitioner is that he had received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as a theft amount from the father of accused No.4. But, there is no specific offence is leveled against this petitioner that he had participated in other cases as narrated in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet laid against him. The Court below has declined for bail on the ground that he has involved in other similar cases. It is further contended that petitioner is ready to abide by any terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court while granting bail to him. These are all the grounds urged by the learned counsel seeking for bail. 5
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State who has taken me through the averments made in the complaint and also the charge sheet laid against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.3 and in the split-up charge sheet this petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.2. He further contended that complainant- Sri. R. Venkatakrishnaiah filed a complaint before the respondent police alleging that on 02.04.2016 at around 11.00 a.m. that himself and one Sri. T. Srinivas and two others came in their Car bearing No.KA-36-N-5930 for the purpose of withdrawal of money from the bank and accordingly they withdrew the amount of Rs.63 lakhs and the said amount was kept in the car and went to S.P. Dolphin Andhra hotel for lunch. When they came back and saw in the car, the bag containing money was found missing. Therefore, the complainant has filed a complaint before the respondent police, which came to be registered in Crime No.82/2016 against the 6 miscreants and thereafter laid the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC. But, this petitioner had involved in some other cases in the similar nature also. He further contends that, if the petitioner is released on bail, certainly he would come in the way of the prosecution and would cause obstacle to proceed with the case as wherein the petitioner is required for facing of trial for the aforesaid offences. These are all the contentions taken by the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State seeking for dismissal of the bail petition filed by the petitioner.
6. Having regard to these contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to the case in Crime No.82/2016 are concerned, it is relevant to state that on 02.04.2016 at around 11.00 a.m that the complainant, one Srinivas and two others came in their Car bearing No.KA-36-N-5930 and they had been for the 7 purpose of withdrawal of the money from the bank and accordingly they withdrawn a sum of Rs.21,50,000/- by presenting the cheque which stand in the name of his wife and Srinivas also encashed Rs.20,50,000/- from the SBI Main Branch, and Rs.20,00,000/- also withdrawn from ICICI Bank. The said amount has been kept in a bag and totally amounting to Rs.63 lakhs had been kept in the bag and same has been kept in the car and they had been to S.P. Dolphin Andhra Hotel for the purpose of lunch. After having lunch, they returned back and when they seen in the car, bag containing money was not found. Therefore, he went to the police station and filed a complaint. Accordingly, a case in Crime No.82/2019 came to be registered against the person said to be the thieves. Thereafter, investigation officer has taken up the case for investigation and laid the split charge sheet against the accused Nos.1, 3, 4 to 7 in Split up C.C.No.1790/2017. In the said split-up charge sheet, this petitioner is arraigned as accused 8 No.2. The original charge sheet filed is in C.C.No.2126/2016. Therefore, at this stage it does not require detailed consideration while considering the bail petition filed by the petitioner as there are substances in the contention of the learned counsel seeking for bail. The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that, if the petitioner supposed to be released on bail, certainly he would come in the way of prosecution and destroy the evidence. The offences alleged against the petitioner are trivial in nature and same are triable before the Magistrate. The apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader 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 as opined, petitioner is deserving for bail. Accordingly, I pass the following; 9
ORDER Bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:
1. The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court where the case in C.C.No.1790/2017 is pending against this petitioner;
2. The petitioner shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses;
3. The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., in the first week of Sunday in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. before the S.H.O. pending disposal of the entire case;
4. The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth.
5. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Raichur District without prior permission from the competent Court of law.10
If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL