Karnataka High Court
Dinesh Kumar R @ Viji vs State Of Karnataka By on 6 January, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6634/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Dinesh Kumar. R @ Viji,
S/o. Ramamurthy,
Aged about 25 yers,
No. 159/09, N R Gate,
Harish Reddy Building,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore District-560 068.
2. M. Rajesh,
S/o. Murugan,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at No.9, 5th cross, Vinayaka Nagar,
Doddanagamangala Road,
Electronic City Post,
Bangalore-100.
3. Prajeval,
S/o. Late Baby,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at No.15, Karthik Apartments,
Begur Main Road, Hongasandra,
Bommanahalli Main Road,
Bangalore-100.
4. Sagar. S,
S/o. K. Shivanna,
Aged about 24 years,
Near Gas shop,
Kaghalipura,
2
Kanakapura Main Road,
Bangalore-100 .. PETITIONERS
(By Sri. N. Chandranna, Adv. for
M/S. C.M. Law Chambers, Advs.)
AND:
State of Karnataka by
S.H.O. Electronic City Police
(C.C.B Police Bangalore-100) .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime
No.400/13 of Electronic City P.S., Bangalore City, for the
offences punishable under Sections 399, 402, 120(B) of IPC,
etc.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following :
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402, 120(B) of IPC, registered in respondent police station Crime No.400/2013.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant one K. Prakash, Police Inspector, C.C.B (Organized crime wing) Bangalore city in the complaint has stated that on 3 19.10.2013 at about 5 P.M., the police inspector was collecting the information from the informants, at that time, he received a credible information from his informant that near adjacent road BBMP Park, Nanjundappa Layout, Electronic City, JCB Narayana and 7-8 followers holding deadly weapons made preparation for committing murder of one Rowdy Vijay Kumar Kavala, robbed his cash and ornaments in his possession. Thereafter, immediately the police inspector secured panchas and informed them about the information received by him. Thereafter, complainant and his staff along with the punch witnesses went by the official vehicle and private vehicle to the spot at about 6-15 P.M. and surrounded the miscreants, who escaped from the spot. The complainant recovered 3 lakhs cash One katti, one long, one button knife, two sticks, one chilli powder one Maruthi red colour Alto car, and TVS Victor Two wheeler vehicle possession of accused and seized the property.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 4
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. They have not committed any offence. They are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. There is no other case is pending against the petitioner. Hence, the petition may be considered and the petitioner may be released on bail.
5. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State, during the course of the arguments, submitted investigation is still pending. At this stage, the petition cannot be considered and the petitioner cannot be released on bail. He further submitted that the investigating officer is conducting investigation. If the petitioner is released on bail, the petitioner may abscond and it will hamper the investigation.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, the complaint and the other materials on record. The offence alleged under Section 399 and 402 IPC 5 are serious offences and the investigation is not yet completed. Therefore, at this stage, it may not be proper for this court to allow the petition and release the pettier on bail. As it is rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, if the petitioners are released on bail, further progress of investigation will hamper. The petitioner can approach this court after completion of the investigation. Hence, at this stage, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-