Karnataka High Court
Manju vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3170/2014
BETWEEN:
MANJU
S/O BASAVANNA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT NO.245/1
UTTARADI MATH ROAD
K R MOHALLA
MYSORE-590019.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N UDAYKUMAR, ADV.,)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIDYARANAYAPURA P.S.
MYSORE-590019.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
ARREST IN CRIME NO.22/2014 OF VIDYARANAYAPURA
POLICE STATION, MYSORE, FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S.364(A), 344,120(B) R/W.SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.7
AND 25 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.7 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 344, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 7 and 25 of Indian Arms Act, 1959, registered in respondent police station Crime No.22/2014.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.7 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that name of the present petitioner is not figured either in the complaint or in the FIR. He also made the submission that even looking to the materials collected during investigation, except the statement made by the person, who said to 3 have been kidnapped that the said farm house belongs to one Manju of Kodanahalli Village. Learned counsel submitted that except this statement there is no other material collected by the Investigating Officer to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of alleged offence. Hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel also relied upon the order dated 24.04.2014 passed by this Court in Crl.P.2040/2014 respect of accused Nos.4, 5 and 9.
4. As against this, the learned HCGP during the course of his arguments submitted that investigation materials go to show that there was a conspiracy between other accused persons and the present petitioner. Therefore, the materials collected during investigation go to show and make out a prima-facie case against the present petitioner. Hence, he is not entitled to be granted with bail.
4
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also the charge sheet material produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have perused the averments in the complaint, looking to the compliant, which is lodged by the wife of the person said to have been kidnapped, no where in the complaint it is stated by the complainant that this petitioner is also involved in kidnapping her husband. So FIR was registered against unknown persons. I have also perused other materials collected during investigation, it is no doubt true in the statement of husband of the complainant, he has stated that said farm house belongs to this petitioner Manju of Kodanahalli Village, only on the basis of that statement it cannot be inferred that it is the present petitioner, who has committed the alleged offence unless there is a prima-facie material placed by the prosecution. I have gone through the order dated 24.04.2014 passed by this Court in Crl.P.2040/2014, this Court has taken into 5 consideration the entire merits of the case and ultimately granted bail to accused Nos.4, 5 and 9. Looking to the allegations in the compliant, they are same against the unknown persons. Therefore, when the present petitioner is also standing on the same footing as that of other accused persons, on the ground of parity present petitioner is entitled to be granted with bail.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 344, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 7 and 25 of Indian Arms Act, 1959, registered in respondent police station Crime No.22/2014, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the 6 likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to make himself
available before the Investigating
Officer for interrogation, as and when called for.
iv. The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of copy of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR