Karnataka High Court
Prema @ Premkumar B J vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 November, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7588 OF 2017
BETWEEN
1. PREMA @ PREMKUMAR B J
S/O JAVAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT , 2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS
ADLIMANE, HASSAN TOWN
PRESENTLY R/AT IN FRONT OF
URDU SCHOOL, KR PURAM
MEDAHALLI, BOODIGERE CROSS
BENGALURU 560 067
2. SUDHEER @ NANJUNDAPPA K A
S/O ANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT KABBURU VILLAGE
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT
PRESENTLY R/AT
IN FRONT OF URDU SCHOOL
KR PURAM
MEDAHALLI, BOODIGERE CROSS
BENGALURU- 560 0 67
3. B PRASHANTHA @ NAVEEN
S/O BASAVARAJEGOWDA
-2-
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
BOREGOWDANAKOPPAL
HUNSUR TALUK,
PRESENTLY R/AT
IN FRONT OF URDU SCHOOL
KR PURAM
MEDAHALLI, BOODIGERE CROSS
BENGALURU 67
4. B R PRAVEEN KUMAR @ GURU
S/O RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RANGENAHALLI VILLAGE
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
PRESENTLY R/AT
IN FRONT OF URDU SCHOOL
KR PURAM
MEDAHALLI, BOODIGERE CROSS
BENGALURU 67
5. ABHI @ ABHIJITH @ ABHIJITHGOWDA
S/O LATE ANNAPPAGOWDA @ SANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT BILAGULA, YESAKAL VILLAGE
MUDIGERE TALUK,
CHIKKMAGALUR DISTRICT 78
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.PRATHEEP K C, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY K R NAGAR POLICE STATION
MYSORE DISTRICT
REP BY ITS
-3-
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 01
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.278/2017 OF K.R.NAGAR POLICE STATION,
MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 392 OF
IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is a petition filed by petitioners accused Nos.1 to 5 filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 392 of IPC registered by the respondent-police in Crime No.278/2017. After completing investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201 and 395 of IPC.
-4-
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per complaint averments is that, being a security officer of Excom Express Pvt. Ltd, he has alleged in the complaint that on 11.06.2017 he had sent a Bolero vehicle bearing NO.KA-19D-8442 with courier bags in order to deliver them to courier office at Kushalnagar, Somwarpete, Madikeri, Virajpet and H.D. Kote and said vehicle was driven by one Sanju S/o Venkatesh. At about 5.30 a.m, complainant received information that near K.R. Nagar some unknown persons intercepted the vehicle and took away 16 courier bags and fled away in a silver colour Indica car. On the basis of the said complaint, firstly FIR came to be registered against unknown persons but during the course of investigation, present petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 and the learned HCGP for the respondent-state.
-5-
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that complainant is not an eye witness and on the basis of the information furnished by one Sanju, the driver of the vehicle, he lodged the complaint. He further submits that now investigation is complete, charge sheet is also filed and recovery aspect is also completed, hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there is recovery of articles and looking to the chargesheet material, there is a prima-facie case as against accused Nos.1-5. The offence alleged is serious in nature and they are not entitled to be granted bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, chargesheet and other materials produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mysuru rejecting the bail application of the petitioners.
-6-
7. The prosecution materials disclose that the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1-4 came to be recorded by the Investigating Officer and in their voluntary statement, they revealed the involvement of accused No.5. Accordingly, even accused No.5 was also apprehended. The prosecution material go to show that out of 48 bags sent in the vehicle, 16 bags were robbed which contained house-hold articles like cloth, glasses and other materials. Investigation material also go to show that investigating officer has recovered 16 bags at the instance of the accused persons. The offence alleged under Section 395 of IPC is a serious offence. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners.
Hence, petition is hereby rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE dn/-