Karnataka High Court
Sri. Rohith Kumar S/O Govindappa vs State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2023
-1-
CRL.P No. 944 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 944 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. ROHITH KUMAR S/O. GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT THAYALUR ROAD,
MULBAGILU TOWN AND TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563131.
(PRESENTLY HOUSED IN JC)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEVARAJA M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MULABAGILU TOWN POLICE STATION,
REP. BY HCGP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Digitally BENGALURU-560001.
signed by
SUCHITRA M J ...RESPONDENT
Location:
HIGH COURT (BY SRI. K.RAHUL RAI, HCGP)
OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.80/2022 REGISTERED
BY MULBAGAL TOWN POLICE STATION, KOLAR FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 114,116,118,120-B,143,147,148,201,212,302 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3 OF KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIMES ACT
AND SEC.116,212 OF IPC AND SEC.3(3),3(4) OF KCOCA ACT ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.2857/2022.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.P No. 944 of 2023
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.12 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in Spl.C.C.No.2857/2022 (Crime No.80/2022 of Mulbagal Town Police Station, Kolar) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 116, 118, 120B, 143, 147, 148, 201, 212, 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Section 3 of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000 (for short 'KCOCA Act'), in which charge is filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 116, 212 of IPC and Sections 3(3), 3(4) of KCOCA Act, pending on the file of learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Nirupama.
2. Heard Sri. Devaraja.M, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.12. He is innocent and -3- CRL.P No. 944 of 2023 has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 26.06.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody. Initially, the FIR was came to be registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Nirupama for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. During investigation, the petitioner was apprehended. Now, investigation has been completed and charge sheet is also filed. The only allegation made against the present petitioner as per the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer is for having committed offence under Sections 116, 212 of IPC and Sections 3(3), 3(4) of KCOCA Act. It is alleged that the petitioner has provided his Car to give drop to accused Nos.1, 3 and 5, knowing fully that they caused the murder of the deceased and enabled them to escape. Apart from that, there is absolutely nothing on record to connect the petitioner to the offence in question. The offence alleged is punishable with maximum imprisonment of three years. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. Under such circumstances, he is not required to be detained in custody for any other purpose except -4- CRL.P No. 944 of 2023 to ensure his presence before the trial Court. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause-title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The petitioner has provided his Car to give drop to accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 knowing fully that they caused the murder of the deceased and enabled them to escape. After investigation, charge sheet is filed. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence and since provisions of KCOCA Act is also invoked, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"-5-
CRL.P No. 944 of 2023
My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
6. Serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. Initially, FIR was came to be registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant. During investigation, it is found that accused Nos.1 to 4 have caused the death of the deceased with help of other accused. The allegations against the accused are of very serious in nature. However, after investigation, charge sheet is filed making specific allegations against each of the accused. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he harbored accused Nos.1 to 4 knowing fully that they caused the death of the deceased by providing his Car and giving drop to enable them to escape. The offence alleged is punishable with maximum imprisonment of three years. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required to be detained in custody for any other purpose except to ensure his presence before the trial Court. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of -6- CRL.P No. 944 of 2023 the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.
7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Spl.C.C.No.2857/2022, Crime No.80/2022 of Mulbagal Town Police Station, Kolar, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:
a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.
b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.-7- CRL.P No. 944 of 2023
If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.
On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64