Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahesha vs State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3848/2014
BETWEEN:
Sri. Mahesha,
S/o. Mahadeva. P,
*21 years,
Belagola Village,
Srirangapatna Taluk,
Mandya District. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri. B.D. Krishnegowda, Adv.)
AND:
State of Karnataka,
Station House Officer,
Vijayanagar Police Station,
Mysore-571 102. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. B.J. Eswarappa, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event
of his arrest in Cr. No.164/2013 of Vijayan agar P.S., Mysore
City, for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
madethefollowing :
* Corrected vide Court order dated 18.08.2014
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail of the offences punishable under Section 392 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.164/2013.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.3 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 12-06-2013 at 2.30 hours the complainant was proceeding in his car No.KA-55-F-4367 to go to NIFTE College. When he reached near BEML factory, some 3 unknown persons came in orange colour Apache vehicle. The complainant stopped his vehicle and slowly opened his car glass and saw. By that time, one person enquired about way to Hunsoor road and immediately, taken the car key. When the complainant got 3 down from the car, another person has assaulted him on his face and chest and by that time, one more person snatched Samsung mobile phone and Rs.400/- from his purse and all the three ran away from the place of incident. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered by the respondent police.
5. At the first instance, the name of the petitioner was neither figured in the FIR nor in the complaint. It is only at the subsequent stage, that too on the basis of the statement of the other accused persons, he has been arrayed as accused No.3 in the case. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have already been enlarged on bail. The petitioner has contended that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has not at all committed the alleged offence. He has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. The offence alleged is triable by the Court of Magistrate and it is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner can be admitted to bail.
4
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Section 392 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.164/2013, subject to the following conditions:
I. The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) and shall offer one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. II. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation, whenever called upon to do so. III. The petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
IV. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and shall execute personal bond as well as surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-