Karnataka High Court
Sri.Lakshmaiah vs State Of Karnataka By T.Narasipura ... on 25 August, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4628/2014
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Lakshmaiah,
S/o. late Ravanaiah,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at Vinobha Colony Village,
Mysore Taluk,
Mysore-570 024.
2. Srinivasa,
S/o. late Subramanya,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at Hosooru Village,
Krishnagiri District,
Tamil Nadu State-24.
3. Kendamma @ Kendi,
W/o. Ravi,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at Halepura Village,
Billikere Hobli,
Hunsur Taluk,
Mysore-571 189.
4. N. Badashah @ Badushah,
S/o. late Nawab Baig,
Aged about 36 years,
2
R/at Vepanapalli Village,
Krishnagiri Taluk,
Krishnagiri District,
Tamil Nadu State-24. .. PETITIONERS
(By Sri. C.M. Jagadeesh, Adv.)
AND:
State of Karnataka by
T. Narasipura Police,
T.Narasipura Taluk,
Mysore District,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
State of Karnataka,
High Court Building,
Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr. No.165/2014 of T. Narasipura P.S., Mysore, for the
offences P/U/S 41(1-D), 102 of Cr.P.C. and Section 392
of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.4, 2, 5 and 1 respectively under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 41(1)(d), 102 of Cr.P.C. and 3 Section 392 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.165/2014.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition and other materials produced in the case.
4. As per the complaint averments, one Mahesh Kumar, CPI, T.Narasipura station has filed the complaint alleging that a Tata Indica car was moving in T.Narasipura town suspiciously. On the information police have searched the said car and traced it near the Government hospital. In the said car, petitioners and another accused Nagaraj were found. On questioning them, they have not given proper reply, hence, they were taken to custody. Police have conducted search of the person of the accused and found six gold bangles 4 with accused No.3 Nagaraju and a gold chain with accused No.5 Kendamma. Said persons have not given convincing reply to the police for the possession of said gold articles and under the mahazar, gold ornaments were seized. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered against the petitioners and accused No.3 Nagaraju for the alleged offences.
5. The complaint averments itself shows that case was registered on suspicion because the petitioners have not given satisfactory answer to the complainant for possessing the said ornaments. They have been seized under mahazar and even the Tata Indica car has been seized by the police. There is no complaint from anybody stating that their ornaments have been robbed by any of these accused persons. The complaint itself is filed on suspicion due to the reason that they have not given proper and satisfactory answer. In the bail petition petitioners have contended that they have not committed any offences and they are ready to abide by 5 any conditions to be imposed by the Court. The alleged offence under Section 392 is also triable by the Magistrate Court and not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners can be admitted to bail.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 41(1)(d), 102 of Cr.P.C. and Section 392 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.165/2014, subject to following conditions:-
(i) Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and furnish one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court.
(ii) They shall not intimidate or tamper with
prosecution witnesses directly or
indirectly.
6
(iii) They shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp