Karnataka High Court
Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5569/2022
BETWEEN
RAMESH KUMAR @ RAMESH
S/O. RANA RAMJI
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT BALA GRAM, HAVOUR TALUK
JAALOUR DISTRICT
RAJASTHAN
...PETITIONER
(BY MS. RAKSHA KRRETHANA K, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YESHWANTHAPURA POLICE STATION
REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H S SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.84/2022 OF YESHWANTHAPURA P.S., BENGALURU CITY
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 392, 394, 397, 450 OF IPC AND
SEC.25, 27 OF ARMS ACT AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.84/2022 of Yeshwanthapura Police Station, Bengaluru city for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 394, 397, 450 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 15.03.2022 at about 1.30 p.m., this petitioner along with other accused persons conspired with each other and accused No.1 was watching the house of CW1 to 3 and this petitioner and accused Nos.1 and 2 suddenly trespassed into the house of CW1 to 3 and accused No.2 showed the lighter which is in the form of pistol and threatened and made CW1 to sit and accused No.1 and this petitioner directed CW2 to produced all gold ornaments or otherwise they are going to take away the life and accused No.1 also showed the knife to CW2 and took her to the study room 3 and there recovered 12 grams of gold necklace, 5 grams of ear stud and 15 grams of gold rings. Accused no.1 tried to snatch the mobile from CW3 and CW1 objected the same and tried to escape from the hands of accused No.2 and at that time accused No.2 hold CW1 and dashed his head to the door and made him to suffer injury and tried to commit the murder. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and accused persons except accused No.4 were apprehended and one ear stud was recovered at the instance of this petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the incident was taken placed on 15.03.2022 and arrest was made on 20.03.2022 and recovery was made at the instance of this petitioner and this petitioner is in custody from 20.03.2022 and also no specific overt act allegation against this petitioner and only allegation is that he caused the threat to produce the gold ornaments and cash and the specific allegation is against accused Nos.1 and 3 that they assaulted CW1 to 3 and there was no any criminal antecedents against the petitioner herein and prayed to allow the petition.
4
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that though this petitioner was arrested and only ear stud was recovered and other gold ornaments were not recovered and the same is with accused No.4 and accused No.4 is absconded and since investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed is not a ground to enlarge this petitioner on bail since his presence is necessary in order to recover the other gold ornaments hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the material available on record it is clear that the allegations against this petitioner is that he is in a part of committing robbery along with other accused persons and the specific overt act allegation against this petitioner is that he along with other accused persons caused threat to hand over the gold and money and when gold ear stud was recovered at the instance of this petitioner and also investigation has been completed and charge-sheet also filed, there is no question of further recovery at the instance of this petitioner. When such being the material available on record and 5 there is no other criminal antecedents against this petitioner, it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail exercising the discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, subject to the condition that this petitioner shall furnish two local sureties in order to secure his presence since he is a resident of Rajasthan.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.3 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.84/2022 of Yeshwanthapura Police Station, Bengaluru city for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 394, 397, 450 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two local sureties of the Rajasthan for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.6
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SN