Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Madan A vs State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2017

Author: Rathnakala

Bench: Rathnakala

                            -1-



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2017

                       BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4924/2017

BETWEEN:

1.   MADAN A.
     S/O ASHOK
     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
     R/O NO.16, KADAYARAPPANAHALLI
     B.K.HALLI POST
     JALA HOBLI
     BANGALORE NORTH
     BANGALORE - 560 064.

2.   PRAVEEN KUMAR
     S/O RAJARAM
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
     R/O NO.156/7U
     RAJARAM BUILDING
     BHAGAVATHI LAYOUT
     NEAR GANESH TEMPLE
     HULIMAVU, B.G.ROAD
     BANGALORE SOUTH
     BANGALORE - 560 076.

3.   CHALAPATHY
     S/O BYCHAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
     R/O NO.252, 5TH CROSS
     JANAPRIYA APARTMENT ROAD
     KENCHENAHALLI
     R.R.NAGAR
     BANGALORE SOUTH
     BANGALORE - 560 098.
                                -2-



4.     MURTHY
       S/O BAYARAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
       R/O NO.76, SHETTIGERE
       BANGALORE - 562 157.

5.     MOHAN
       S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
       AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
       R/O NO.SHETTIGERE
       DODDAJALA POST
       BANGALORE - 560 057.                   ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI S.SHANKARAPPA, ADV.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MAGADI ROAD P.S.
REPRESENTED BY PP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.                          ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL
IN CR.NO.130/2017 OF MAGADI ROAD P.S., BANGALORE, FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S 364A, 397, 506B R/W 34 OF IPC.

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                         ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. -3-

2. The petitioners are in judicial custody in Cr.No.130/2017 registered by the respondent-police for the offences punishable under sections 364-A, 397, 506-B r/w section 149 of IPC.

3. As per the submission of the learned Government Pleader, now the case is transferred to jurisdiction of Basaveshwarnagar police station.

4. The allegation is, the victim Paramesh, aged 29 years, son of the complainant, who was engaged for the publicity of a film was abducted by the petitioners/Producer/Director of the said film and four others on 24.5.2017. The accused persons contacted the complainant on his mobile phone and placed demand for a ransom of Rs.8 lakhs or else they will do away with the life of the victim. On 26.5.2017 the complaint was lodged and a trap was laid. The victim was rescued and all the five accused were apprehended.

-4-

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the victim Paramesh while accepting the publicity of the film 'Eradu Kanasu', had received Rs.16,30,000/- towards commission of the said work. But subsequently, he failed to perform his part of the contract. Hence, the accused persons called Paramesh for negotiations and during the discussion with him, he agreed to return Rs.8 lakhs. Though the incident is alleged to have taken place on 24.5.2017, it is to be noted that the complaint is lodged only on 26.5.2017. The petitioners are not the persons having criminal antecedents and they are not required in custody for the purpose of further investigation. They are ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court.

6. In reply, the learned Government Pleader submits that the conversation and the messages exchanged between the father of the complainant and the accused persons is recorded. The accused persons used criminal force against the victim. Since the investigation is still in -5- progress, in the event they are enlarged on bail, the Investigating Officer apprehends injury to the life and limb of the complainant. Hence, the petition may be rejected.

7. In the light of the above submission, for adjudication of the present petition, it is noticed that money dispute between A-1 and the victim Paramesh has culminated into present situation. The petitioners are not shown to have criminal background. Their presence is not required in custody until filing of final report, having regard to the nature of the allegations made in the complaint.

Hence, the petition is allowed. Petitioners are enlarged on bail in Crime No.130/2017 of respondent- police, subject to the following conditions:

(i) They shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) They shall make themselves available before the Investigating Officer whenever called for during further course of -6- investigation and shall not threaten the complainant and the victim.

Sd/-

JUDGE Dvr: