Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sharanappa S/O Hanumappa Katralli vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102045/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHARANAPPA,
S/O HANUMAPPA KATRALLI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KASANAKANDI, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION,
KOPPAL, NOW REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
- RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, GOVT. PLEADER)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE ACCUSED NO.1 IN S.C. NO.
21/2018 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,
KOPPAL IN CRIME NO. 70/2016 REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 397 OF IPC BY THE MUNIRABAD
POLICE STATION & ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING UP FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. by the accused No.1 in S.C. No. 21/2018 pending on the file of learned Dist. & Sessions Judge, Koppal for the offence punishable u/S 397 of IPC.
2. The substance of the complaint is extracted from the copy of the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 100253/2017 dated 14.03.2017.
"The factual matrix disclose that on 23.03.2016, in the night hours between 9 p.m. on 23.03.2016 and morning 7 a.m. of 24.03.2016, the complainant by name Mustak was working as security guard in the Munirabad SBI ATM branch. He has stated that at about 3.30 a.m. on 24.03.2016 some three persons suddenly gained unlawful entry into the ATM. Out of them one held the neck of the security guard and another has assaulted him on his cheek and another person put chopper on the neck of the security guard, snatched an amount of Rs.2,000/- from him. They also made all their attempts to remove the ATM machine itself. When the complainant-security guard screamed for help the said three persons left the complainant and ran away from the spot. Immediately he went to the nearby Police station and lodged a complaint. He has also given the identification marks of the accused persons. The Police have registered a case and investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet before the Court.":3:
3. Originally the case was charge sheeted for the offence punishable u/S 394 of IPC. The case was registered in Crime No. 70/2016 on 24.03.2018 for the offence punishable u/S 394 IPC and it was charge sheeted for the same offence. The present application is filed by the accused No.1-Sharanappa. However, accused No.3 had filed application seeking his enlargement on bail. This Court dismissed the said application on 14.03.2017 directing to dispose of the matter within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. It is submitted that, after conclusion of the prosecution evidence, application came to be filed by the prosecution u/S 216 of Cr.P.C. for alteration of the charge to convert the provision of law pertaining to offence, i.e., from Sec. 394 of IPC to Sec. 397 of IPC. Both the Sections read thus:
Sec. 394 of IPC - If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a :4: term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Sec. 397 of IPC - Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt - If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
---
4. The application u/S 216 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution on 20.12.2017 and was disposed of on 08.03.2018. In any way the matter was not disposed of by the trial Court so far.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application is filed under the changed circumstances of non disposal of the appeal despite direction by this Court and the period of custody of the petitioner is from 24.03.2016 and the petitioner be released on bail.
6. Learned Govt. Pleader opposes the bail application.
:5:
7. It is necessary to mention that the petitioner was said to have been arrested on 24.03.2016. On the earlier occasion, the application that was filed, came to be dismissed with a direction for disposal as stated above. Regard being had to the fact that, the petitioner would submit that, so far the case is not disposed of.
8. The minimum imprisonment provided for the offence punishable u/S 397 of IPC, is seven years. However, the punishment provided for the offence u/S 394 of IPC is that, it may be extended to ten years and no minimum limit is provided. In the circumstances, though the petition was moved by the accused No.3- Suresh in this connection, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directed for early disposal, that was on 14.03.2017. The period of custody of this accused is about more than two years eight months.
9. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that delay in disposal of the case while :6: the petitioner is in judicial custody, in the facts and circumstances, works out to be a changed circumstance under which the petitioner is entitled for bail, however, subject to stringent conditions. Hence, the following order is passed.
ORDER Petition filed by the petitioner u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in S.C. No. 21/2008 on the file of Learned Dist. & Sessions Judge, Koppal for the offences punishable u/S 397 of IPC (Crime No. 70/2016 of Munirabad Police Station) subject to the following conditions.
1. He shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety for the likesum possessing immovable property to the satisfaction of the trial Court;
2. He shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on the first and fourth Saturday of each month.
:7:
3. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of Koppal District without informing the investigating officer in writing.
Prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail in the event of violation of the conditions.
Sd/-
JUDGE bvv