Chidambara Reddy vs State By Sadashivanagar on 23 January, 2018

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Chidambara Reddy vs State By Sadashivanagar on 23 January, 2018

Bench: R.B Budihal

                           1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
                       BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10217/2017
BETWEEN:

CHIDAMBARA REDDY
S/O RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT 5/2, R K R NAGAR
GUTTAPALLI POST AND VILLAGE
SAMBEPALLI TALUK
Y S R KADAPA DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH-516215.
                                     ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K.V. SHIVAREDDY, ADV.,)

AND:

STATE BY SADASHIVANAGAR
POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.                   ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CR.NO.180/2017 OF SADASHIVANAGAR POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
                            2



448 AND 506(B) OF IPC AND SEC.5, 27 AND 28 INDIAN
ARMS ACT.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506(B) of IPC and Sections 5, 27 and 28 of the Indian Arms Act, registered in respondent - police station in Crime No.180/2017.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.2, so also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

3. Referring to the complaint averments, so also the other materials on the side of the prosecution, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 made 3 the submission that so far as petitioner is concerned, his name is not at all mentioned either in the complaint or in the FIR. But he draw the attention of this Court to remand application wherein for the first time name of the present petitioner has been taken. Hence, he submitted, that itself clearly goes to show the false implication of the petitioner in the case. Learned counsel made the submission that even though name of Gangadhara specifically taken in the remand application and in the complaint, even then FIR came to be registered against unknown persons. Hence, he submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, he submits that by imposing reasonable conditions the petitioner can be admitted to regular bail.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State made the submission 4 that supari is given to eliminate the complainant for a sum of Rs. 1 crore. Therefore, he submitted that till investigation is completed and final report is submitted in the case, petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also the remand application copy produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. As per the complaint averments, there are serious allegations made in the complaint and alleged offences are also under the provisions of Indian Arms Act and there was conspiracy to eliminate the complainant for the supari amount of Rs.1 crore. The matter is still under investigation. Therefore, without expressing any opinion of this Court on the merits of the case to allow the petition and to release the 5 petitioner on bail, the petition stands rejected with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court immediately after completing investigation and submitting final report in the matter.

Sd/-

JUDGE PMR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court