Karnataka High Court
Sri Madhu vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2014
Author: A.V.Chandrashekara
Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6887/2014
BETWEEN:
SRI. MADHU,
S/O SRI NAGENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/A No.3, K.T. APARTMENT,
DIAGONAL ROAD,
V.V. PURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 004. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.S. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE - 562 123.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: H.M. THIMMARAYAPPA, SPL. P.P.,)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO ENLARGE
THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C. No.18/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/c OF
COURT OF FTC-1, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
2
SECTIONS 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 323, 324, 332,
307, 302, 506, 114 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is accused No.33 in case bearing Crime No.244/2012 (S.C. No.18/2014) on the file of Nelamangala Town Police Station. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 323, 324, 332, 307, 302, 506, 114 read with Section 149 of IPC., and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. Case on hand pertains to the murder of one BEML Krishnappa by accused Nos.1 to 5. The allegation against this petitioner is that he was driving a Skoda Car belonging to Prashanth Gowda (accused No.32) and on the alleged date of incident, he had been instructed to follow the Car of the deceased from Bangalore till Nelamangala and to communicate the same to accused No.1. What is argued before this Court is that similarly placed accused 3 have already been released on bail by this Court and no overt act is attributed to this petitioner in causing the death of BEML Krishnappa.
3. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that this petitioner is a rowdy sheeter and a rowdy sheet has been opened by Basavanagudi Police Station and if he is released on bail, he is likely to commit similar offences and harass the witnesses.
4. It is true that no serious overt act is attributed to this petitioner in the murder of BEML Krishnappa. It is too premature to disbelieve the case of the prosecution in so far as it relates to this petitioner driving a vehicle belonging to accused No.32 - Prashanth Gowda to follow the vehicle of the deceased from Bangalore to Nelamgangala and give information to accused Nos.1 to 5. Taking into consideration that this petitioner is a rowdy sheeter being accused in many criminal cases, this is not 4 a fit case in which discretion could be exercised under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, at this stage.
5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner, who was arraigned as an accused in a case, has been acquitted, the fact remains that he is still a rowdy sheeter and rowdy sheet has not been deleted.
Hence, petition is dismissed. Petitioner can approach this Court seeking regular bail after examination of material witnesses before the trial Court.
SD/-
JUDGE sma