Karnataka High Court
Veeresh Kalapur S/O Addppa vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B V PINTO
CRL.PETITION No.200017/2014
BETWEEN
VEERESH KALAPUR S/O ADDPPA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH LINGASUGUR P.S.,
TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANJAY.A.PATIL, ADDL.SPP )
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE BAIL PETITION AND
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.326/2013 OF LINGASUGUR
POLICE STATION, TALUK LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR,
WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 143,
147, 504, 506, 342 & 384 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.326/2013 of Lingasugur police station registered for offences under Sections 143, 147, 504, 506, 342 & 384 r/w 149 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the complainant one Sri Nagaraj, that he is running a coaching center in the name of National Career Academy, which trains youth for preparing them for competitive examinations. The petitioner along with others was pestering the complainant to give money and was demanding a sum of Rs.30,000/- for the academic year 2012-13. It is also stated in the complaint that petitioners have threatened that if the money is not given they would not leave him and would not allow him to run the institution. It is also stated in the complaint that the petitioner has 3 threatened the complainant with his life and assaulted him on 19.11.2013.
3. Sri Ganesh Naik, learned counsel for petitioner submits that a false case has been filed against the petitioner. Hence, he submits that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Sri Sanjay.A.Patil, learned Addl. SPP submits that the petitioner along with the others have been extracting money from the public and therefore he submits that the application for bail may be rejected.
5. Having regard to the nature of the offences committed by the petitioner, it is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE msr