Karnataka High Court
Prasad S/O Ramayya vs The State on 26 April, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200312/2018
BETWEEN:
Prasad S/o Ramayya
Age: Major, Occ: Coolie,
R/o Bullapur Village,
Tq. & Dist. Raichur-585401.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Arunkumar Amargundappa, Advocate)
AND:
The State through Manvi Police Station
Rept., By the Special Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi - 01.
... Respondent
(By Sri.P.S.Patil, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., praying to allow the petition and direct the
respondent P. S. to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event
of his arrest in Crime No.113/2016 (CC No.283/2017),
registered for the offences punishable under sections 457,
2
380 and 411 of IPC of (Manvi Police Station) pending on the
file of Civil Judge Junior Division and JMFC, at Manvi.
This petition is coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner who accused No.4 filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.113/2016 (CC No.280/2017) registered for the offences punishable under Sections under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of IPC by the Manvi Police.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Vadiraj S/o Bheemrao Kulkarni lodged complaint on 25.03.2016 alleging that he is a Manager in Vyoma Network Company wherein the company is having a branch in Manvi taluk and one mobile tower is installed in Rajalbanda village. The tower has a battery worth of Rs.49,850/- and the same was being supervised by one Ravikumar, resident of Raichur and also Technician 3 Sharanu. On 23.03.2016 at about 7.30 a.m. when complainant was at Lingasugur, the technician called over phone and informed about disconnection of signal in the tower and on noticing the same found, it was found that batteries of Amaraja company are stolen by some unknown persons. On such information the complainant visited the spot and came to know theft of above batteries, which were fixed to the tower. The stolen batteries were worth of Rs.22,000/-. Therefore, the complaint was registered in Cr.No.113/2016 for the offence stated supra. Initially the case was registered against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the Police collected the material and filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of IPC. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested, accused No.4 remained absconding, as such the learned JMFC issued NBW against accused No.4. Hence, the present petition is filed for anticipatory bail.
4
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is innocent, he has not committed any offence much less alleged in the complaint. The respondent-Police without there being any material has implicated the petitioner falsely. Initially complaint was lodged against unknown persons. Accused No.4/petitioner has been implicated only on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.1. The very initiation of crime against the accused No.4 was not within his knowledge. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for bail. He would further contend that the accused-petitioner has completed ITI and working as Technician in the complainant's company. The other accused persons not at all known to this petitioner nor 5 they are friends of this petitioner. Therefore, committing offence with the other accused does not arise. The petitioner has no bad antecedents and has not involved in any other case. There is no specific overt-acts attributed to this petitioner. The petitioner is law-abiding citizen having movable and immovable properties in the village and he is from reputed family. Therefore, he sought to allow the petition.
5. Sri P.S.Patil, learned HCGP opposes the petition and would contend that though the petitioner is working as Technician in complainant's company, he colluded with other accused and committed theft. Though initially the case was registered against unknown persons, during the course of investigation and on the statement made by the accused No.1 who confessed that he along with his friends including the present petitioner has committed theft of properties/batteries. The petitioner has not made out 6 any ground to grant anticipatory bail. He would further contend that since the petitioner remained absconding, the case against this petitioner has been split up and the jurisdictional police have filed split up charge sheet and the jurisdictional Court issued NBW against the petitioner. The petitioner has managed and remained absconding nearly about two years, which is nothing, but obstructing the trial of the case. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may again flee from justice and may not co-operate with the trial. Therefore, sought to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that initially the case was registered on the basis of complaint against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the I.O. has collected material and filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of IPC. It is also not 7 in dispute that the accused Nos.1 to 3 have already been arrested and this petitioner is absconding from 25.03.2016 to till today successfully. Therefore, the Police were forced to split the case as against this petitioner and file split up charge sheet and the jurisdictional Court issued NBW against the petitioner. Therefore, he is before this Court.
7. It is also not in dispute that as per the contents of the petition clearly depicts that the present petitioner is working as Technician in the complainant's company and in view of the voluntary statement made by accused No.1 confessing that he along with other accused including this petitioner have committed theft of the property. Though the investigation is completed, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary in case of theft and lurking house trespass. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, certainly he will not co-operate with the trial and he will tamper and 8 terrorize the material witnesses of the prosecution and he may also flee from justice, in that event it is not possible for the Police to trace out the petitioner. If the petitioner is granted bail, he will take it as shelter to flee away from the trial. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any prima facie case and there are sufficient materials against the petitioner for having involved in the case. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail.
In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE NSP