Karnataka High Court
Dhanraj Poojary @ Dhanu vs State Of Karnataka on 22 January, 2018
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9730/2017
BETWEEN:
DHANRAJ POOJARY @ DHANU
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
S/O. GOPALA POOJARY,
R/O. VOLACHIL HOUSE,
ARKULA VILLAGE,
FARANGIPETE POST,
MANGALURU TALUK-575001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MUZAFFAR AHMED, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANGALURU NORTH POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE
(REPRESENTED BY
LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CR.NO.72/2016 OF MANGALURU NORTH POLICE
2
STATION, MANGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
323,341,143,307 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 143, 307 read with 149 of IPC, registered in respondent
- police station Crime No.72/2016.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that apart from this case petitioner is involved in two other cases, but in 3 all the three cases he was granted with bail. He also submitted that in this case when petitioner was granted bail by the order of the Sessions Judge, but because of a crime being registered against him, again he was taken to custody on the ground that he has violated the conditions of the bail order, since there was a condition in the bail order that he should not involve in committing any other offences. He has further submitted that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. He also made the submission that even according to the charge sheet material, the offence for which he is liable as alleged by the prosecution is under Sections 341, 323, 504 read with 149 of IPC, hence by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the bail petition contending that 4 petitioner is involved in five cases and the alleged offence in four cases is under Section 307 of IPC and in one case an offence under Section 324 and 384 of IPC. Therefore, he submitted that petitioner is having a criminal background and is an habitual offender, hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
6. As submitted by the learned HCGP referring to the case file, there is involvement of petitioner in four cases for similar offences under Section 307 of IPC and in one case for the offence under Section 324 and 384 of IPC. At this stage, it prima-facie shows that petitioner is an habitual offender and in case if he is released on bail there is every possibility that again he may involve in committing the similar offences in future and even he 5 may abscond. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Hence, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR