Karnataka High Court
Shri. Eranna S/O. Mudiyappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 October, 2022
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
CRL.P No. 102985 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102985 OF 2022 (438-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. ERA NNA S /O. MUDIYA PPA
AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. AGR ICULTUR E,
R/O. HANVAL V ILLAGE, TQ. KOP PAL,
DIS T. KO PPAL, PI N CODE-583231.
NOW R/A T VENKATAPURA VILLAGE,
TAL UK- H OSAP ETE, DIS T. BA LLAR I.
...PETI TIONER
(B Y S HR I SA NTOSH B . MALA GOUDA R, A DV OCA TE)
AND:
THE S TA TE OF KARNA TAKA,
THR OUGH PSI THO RANAGA L PO LIC E STA TION,
R/B Y ADDL. S TA TE PUBLIC PROS ECU TOR ,
SPP OFFIC E, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580011.
...R ESPONDENT
THIS CRI MINA L P ETITION IS FIL ED U /SEC.438 OF
CR.P.C, S EEK ING TO DIR ECT THE R ES PONDENT/PO LIC E TO
ENLARGE TH E PET ITIONER/A CCUS ED NO.3 ON
ANT ICI PATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN
CRIME NO.159/2021 OF THORA NGAL P OLIC E S TATION
REGISTER ED FOR THE OFFENC ES U/S EC.379 OF IPC, IN
THE I NTER ES T OF JUS TICE A ND EQU ITY.
THIS CRIMI NA L PET ITION CO MI NG ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MA DE THE FOLLOWI NG:
-2-
CRL.P No. 102985 of 2022
ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.3 under Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.159/2021 of Thoranagal Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.', for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution is that, one K. Rafiq S/o Yusuf Sab has filed a complaint stating that his elder brother K. Khaza S/o Yusuf Sab was working in Jindal Factory on contract basis and he is owning a bike bearing Reg.No.KA.35/L.4436 and he uses the same to commute to the Jindal Factory. It is further stated that 1 ½ years ago, his brother had parked the said vehicle at Thorangal Jindal Old Gate near a shop at night hours and it was stolen during night. -3- CRL.P No. 102985 of 2022 His brother searched for his missing bike and did not find it. Few days later, his elder brother fell ill due to jaundice and he breathed his last. The complainant did not find the documents related to the missing bike and therefore, he did not lodge any complaint about the missing bike. It is further stated that about 3 months prior to the filing of the complaint, he came to know that his brother's stolen bike was found by Koppal Town Police Station from the possession of Manjunath @ Manju S/o Parsuram (accused No.1) and Sanna Basavanagowda (accused No.2), who alleged to have stolen the bike and it has been seized by the Koppal Town Police Station and was sent to Thorangal Police Station and he came to know the same through Thorangal Police. Thereafter, after three months, he filed complaint which came to be registered in Crime No.159/2021 of Thoranagal Police Station for the offence punishable under -4- CRL.P No. 102985 of 2022 Section 379 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the police arrested accused Nos.1 and 2 and recorded their voluntary statements wherein they reveal theft of the bike of complainant's brother and sale of the same to the petitioner/accused No.3 for Rs.20,000/- and sharing of the amount among them and also theft of other two wheelers on different date and time. The petitioner/accused No.3 was secured by the Thoranagal Police and his voluntary statement has been recorded. The police after completing investigation filed charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. The petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.3 apprehending his arrest filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.721/2022 seeking anticipatory bail and the same came o be rejected by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari by order dated 13.09.2022. Therefore, the -5- CRL.P No. 102985 of 2022 petitioner/accused No.3 is before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, there is a delay in filing the complaint. The offence under Section 379 of IPC is not attracted against this petitioner/accused No.3. The accusation against this petitioner/accused No.3 is that, he has purchased the stolen bike from accused Nos.1 and 2. It is her further submission that, charge sheet is filed and therefore, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. It is his further submission that the stolen bike has been recovered from this petitioner under Mahazar and he is ready to cooperate with the police officer in the -6- CRL.P No. 102985 of 2022 investigation. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State would contend that, the voluntary statement of this petitioner/accused No.3 has been recorded which reveal that knowingly this petitioner has purchased the stolen bike. The said bike has been seized at the instance of this petitioner/accused No.3 under Mahazar. It is his further submission that the charge-sheet material shows prima-facie case against the petitioner for the offence alleged against him. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. With these, he prays to reject the petition. -7- CRL.P No. 102985 of 2022
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State, this Court has gone through the charge-sheet records and the order passed by Sessions Court.
7. The accusation leveled against accused Nos.1 and 2 is that they committed theft of the bike of the elder brother of the complainant bearing Reg.No.KA-35/L-4436. The accusation against this petitioner/accused No.3 is that he purchased the said stolen bike from accused Nos.1 and 2 for Rs.20,000/-. The offence alleged against this petitioner in the charge-sheet is the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. The offence alleged against the petitioner is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the punishment provided for the same is imprisonment for life which may extend up to 3 years. As the charge-sheet is filed, the petitioner/accused No.3 -8- CRL.P No. 102985 of 2022 is not required for any custodial interrogation. The main apprehension of the prosecution is that, if the petitioner/accused No.3 is granted anticipatory bail, he will threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and flee from justice can be met with by imposing stringent conditions.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner-accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.159/2021 of Thoranagal -9- CRL.P No. 102985 of 2022 Police Station, pending in C.C.No.138/2022 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Sandur subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court.
ii. The petitioner shall voluntarily appear before the jurisdictional Court within fifteen days from this day and execute bail bond and furnish surety.
iii. The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iv. The petitioner shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless exempted, and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE AM