Karnataka High Court
Vinaykumar @ Minda vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4769/2022
BETWEEN:
1. VINAYKUMAR @ MINDA
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT No.91, 1ST MAIN
6TH CROSS, GELEYARABALAGA
SRIRAMANAGARA
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 086
2. MAHADEVA @ BUSA @ HOOSA
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO.44 ,8TH CROSS
14TH MAIN, J C NAGARA
KURUBARAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560086. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BASAVESHWARANAGARA POLICE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.73/2022 OF BASAVESHWARA NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU
CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.399 AND 402 OF IPC AND
SEC.25 OF ARMS ACT ON THE FILE OF THE V A.C.M.M. COURT
AT BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.73/2022 of Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that these two petitioners along with others were making preparation to commit dacoity armed with deadly weapons. On reliable information, raid was conducted and arrested these accused persons.
3
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that no such offence is committed and also not making any preparation and they have been falsely implicated in similar cases. Hence, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State would submit that there were 17 cases inclusive of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC and other offences; they are the habitual offenders and not entitled for bail.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, no doubt, number of cases are registered against these petitioners, the Court has to take note of the allegation made in the present case and the allegation is that along with other accused persons making a preparation to commit dacoity and no offence is committed and only the preparation to commit dacoity. When such being the case, mere filing of other cases is not a ground to reject the bail petition. Hence, it is appropriate to enlarge them on bail, subject 4 to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall be released on bail in Crime No.73/2022 of Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of 5 the Court, till the case registered against them is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE cp*