Karnataka High Court
Arun vs State Of Karnataka By on 16 June, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3355 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
ARUN
S/O.KARTHIK
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.15/116, 2ND CROSS
KATHRIGUPPE, BSK 3RD STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 085.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.KODANDARAME GOWDA.V, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KENGERI P.S.,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
((BY SRI.B.J.ESWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN CR.NO.64/2014 OF KENGERI P.S.,
BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 364A, 365,
384 AND 506 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioner - accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 365, 384 and 506 of IPC registered by the respondent - police in Crime No.64/2014.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that earlier also accused No.5 approached this Court and the same was rejected by observing that investigation is still going on. He made the submission that subsequently when accused Nos.5 and 6 again approached this Court in Crl.P.No.3080/2014 and they were granted with bail. He made the submission that today is the 93rd day and 3 investigation is already completed, but as the case is transferred to Attibele Police Station, on the ground of jurisdiction, the prosecution not yet placed the charge sheet before the Court, though the investigation is completed. He made the submission that it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner along with other accused persons possessed any deadly weapon, so as to threaten the complainant to part with the money. He also made the submission that even the averments made in the complaint will not prima-facie show about the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. Hence, submitted to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail by imposing reasonable conditions.
4. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that the materials collected during investigation clearly makes out a prima-facie case against the present petitioner. Hence, he submitted 4 that the offence alleged under Section 364-A of IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. Perusing the allegations made in the complaint, it is stated that one Suguna, called the complainant and asked him that they can go to Kaivara at 4.00 p.m. and accordingly, they both went in a vehicle to Kaivar and there the room was booked in Venkateshwara lodge and when Suguna and the complainant were in the said room, other persons came to the said room among whom the present petitioner was also one. It is stated that the accused persons took the complainant in the vehicle which was brought by the other accused persons and when they were so proceeding, they took his two gold rings and cash of Rs.5,200/-. The further allegation in the complaint that on the way they took him to one garden land, wherein he was asked to remove his clothes, then his photograph was taken along with Suguna in nude 5 position and then when coming in the said vehicle they left two ladies there itself i.e., Geetha and Suguna and on the way other accused persons threatened the complainant and demanded to pay cash of Rs.50 lakhs, otherwise they will publish the photograph of him alongwith Suguna in media. But the complainant told the accused persons that he is not capable to pay Rs.50 lakhs to them and then it was reduced to Rs.5 lakhs. Then, he informed his friend - Subramani to bring Rs.5 lakhs and in the meanwhile, police surrounded them and caught hold the accused persons including the present petitioner. So this material goes to show that present petitioner was caught hold red handed by the police when they were taking the complainant in their vehicle and moving here and there and threatening him to pay Rs.5 lakhs ransom amount.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that as accused Nos.5 and 6 have been already granted with bail, so the 6 present petitioner is also entitled to be granted with bail on the ground of parity. But looking to the allegations made in the complaint as against accused Nos.5 and 6, they have not gone to Kaivara and also they were not staying in the lodge at Kaivara. But the allegations goes to show that when other accused persons came back, then on the way accused Nos.5 and 6 boarded the said vehicle. Therefore, allegations as against accused Nos.5 and 6 are all together different from present petitioner. When there is a allegation made by the complainant that he has been kidnapped because of the ransom amount of Rs.50 lakhs and when the present petitioner has been caught hold red handed by the police when he was in the vehicle along with the present complainant and offence under Section 364-A of IPC is exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, I am of the opinion that the present petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. Accordingly, petition is rejected. However, after filing of the charge sheet, petitioner is at 7 liberty to move before the concerned Sessions Court seeking his release on bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE VMB