Karnataka High Court
Sri Raja @ Umesh K N vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
Criminal Petition No.1818 of 2014
And
Criminal Petition No.1851 of 2014
In Crl. P. No. 1818/2014
Between:
SRI RAJA @ UMESH K N
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
NO.681,MARUTHI LAYOUT, 4TH CROSS,
PEENYA INDL.AREA & 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-560058
... PETITIONER
(By SRI SRIKANTH B, ADV. )
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KENGERI POLICE
BANGALORE. 560 060.
... RESPONDENT
(By SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.51/14 OF KENGERI P.S.,
BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 364(A), 365 OF IPC.
In Crl. P No.1851/2014
BETWEEN
SRI SHEKAR
S/O LATE RAME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
NO.42/3, 3RD CROSS,
2
MARUTHI NAGAR
VRUSHABAVATHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri SRIKANTH B, ADV. )
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KENGERI POLICE,
BANGALORE 560 060.
... RESPONDENT
(By SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP )
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CRIME NO.51/14 OF KENGERI P.S., BANGALORE CITY,
FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 364(A), 365 OF IPC.
THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These are two petitions filed by accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively in respect of the same crime number. Hence both petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
2. Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to direct the respondent police to release the petitioners on bail in 3 the event of their arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Section 364(A) and 365 registered in the respondent police station Crime No. 51/2014.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners i.e. A-1 and A 3 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent - State.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners during the course of his argument submitted that accused No.1 advanced a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to the complainant to start his business and when he demanded return of Rs. 2 lakhs from the complainant instead of repaying the money, complainant filed a false complaint making false allegations against the petitioners-accused. Counsel also made submission that there is delay in lodging the complaint. Looking to the materials produced by the complainant, no prima face case has been made out to show the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offence. Hence, learned Counsel made 4 submission that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioners may be admitted to bail.
5. As against this learned HCGP submits that looking to the averments made in the complaint as well as the statement of witnesses, it goes to show the involvement of both the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. He also made submission that there is also offence alleged under Section 364(A) of IPC punishable for death or imprisonment for life. He also made submission that the case is still under investigation and hence at this stage petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in these petitions, FIR, complaint, the order passed by the lower Court on the bail application and other materials placed on record. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint that on 09.02.2014 the accused came near the house of the complainant and made phone call to him and asked him to come out of his house. Then the accused persons took the complainant in to the car and went far away and then they threatened the complainant to give Rs.5 lakhs and they have snatched Rs.40,000/- and an 5 ATM card and obtained his signature on a blank paper with three cheques as if the complainant borrowed loan from the accused persons and obtained signature of the complainant on three cheques one for rupees one lakh and another two for Rs.50,000/- each. When they took the signature of the complainant on the blank paper, they had shown knife and threatened him and they have also asked him to pay back the loan amount and they have recorded the same in the tape recorded. Looking to these allegations which are serious in nature the complainant kept quiet from 09.02.2014 till 24.02.2014 and then he lodged a complaint. Therefore, there is a delay of 15 days in lodging the complaint for the alleged offence. It goes to show that the complaint is motivated and an after thought. Looking to the averments made in both petitions filed by the petitioners they have contended that they have been falsely implicated and they are innocent and not involved in the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore, looking to these materials on record, I am of the opinion that these are fit cases to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners accused Nos. 1 and 3. 6
7. Accordingly both petitions are allowed. Respondent police is directed to release the petitioners herein i.e. Raja @ Umesh K.N. and Shekar in the event of their arrest for the alleged offence registered in respondent police station crime No. 51/2014 subject to the following conditions:
i) Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for Rupees one lakh each and to furnish one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii) Petitioners shall visit the respondent police station once in a fortnight preferably on Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon till completion of investigation and filing charge sheet.
iv) Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and execute personal bond and surety bond each.
.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vb/-