Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Shri.Babu S/O Yallappa Bhajantri vs State Of Karnataka on 3 June, 2019

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2019

                      BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

        CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100680 OF 2019

BETWEEN

SHRI BABU,
S/O YALLAPPA BHAJANTRI,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O UMESH NAGAR,
HUKKERI, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.                         ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAM P. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
YAMAKANAMARDI POLICE, BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.                              ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439   OF   CR.P.C.  SEEKING     TO   ENLARGE    THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRIME NO.345/2017 OF
YAMAKANMARDI     POLICE   STATION,    BELAGAVI,   IN
C.C.NO.67/2019 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) & JMFC COURT, SANKESHWAR,
                               :2:


FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 457,
380, 511 OF IPC.

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


                             ORDER

This petition has been filed by petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code to release him on bail in connection with Crime No.345/2017 of Yamakanmardi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 457, 380 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The gist of the complaint is that on 12.11.2017, at about 5.00 p.m. the complainant, along with his family members, had been to Byalur village. On the next day, at about 7.00 a.m., he received a phone call from the neighbouring house about the theft :3: that had taken place in his house. Immediately, he rushed to the house and found that six tolas of gold ornaments, 40 tolas of silver articles and cash of Rs.15,000/- were stolen. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the petitioner is innocent and he was not present at the time of alleged offences. It is his submission that the petitioner/accused is not a 'habitual offender'; the alleged offences are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life; accused No.2 has already been released on bail on similar facts and circumstances; the petitioner is ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and is also ready to furnish sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner/accused committed theft by trespassing into the house. He further submitted that there is recovery evidence and if the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail, he may abscond and he may not be available for trial. He further submitted that the police have also registered many cases as against the petitioner and he is a 'habitual offender'. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. I have carefully and cautiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. On a close reading of the contents of the complaint and other material, it is seen that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. Even as could be seen from the lower court records, though it is observed that the petitioner/accused is a 'habitual offender', it :5: does not go to fit into the definition of 'habitual offender' under the Karnataka Habitual Offenders Act, 1961, so as to call the petitioner/accused a 'habitual offender'. The alleged offences are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The chargesheet has already been filed and the petitioner is not required for further interrogation. Under the facts and circumstances, if, by imposing some stringent conditions, the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, the same would meet the ends of justice.

8. In the light of the above discussion held by me, the petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail, in connection Crime No.345/2017 of Yamakanamardi Police Station, subject to following conditions:

(a) the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

(b) he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly;

(c) he shall mark his attendance once in a month preferably on the 1st day of every month till the trial is concluded; and

(d) he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission;

Sd/-

JUDGE Kms