Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jagannatha vs State By on 4 September, 2020
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4053/2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. JAGANNATHA,
S/O. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
HANIYURE VILLAGE,
DODDATHUMAKUR POST,
HESARGHATTA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-561 023.
... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA H.V., ADVOCATE]
AND:
STATE BY SOLADHEVANAHALLI,
POLICE STATION, BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY,
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP]
***
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.118/2020 REGISTERED BY
SOLADEVANHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR
2
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120-B, 307,
397 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY THE COURT
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned HCGP takes notice for the respondent/State. Heard Sri. Subramanya H.V., learned counsel for the petitioner and the Sri. K.S. Abhijith, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with a case registered in Crime No.118/2020 of Soladevanahalli police station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC.
3. In the complaint lodged on 23.07.2020 by one Rajashekar D. at Soladevanahalli police station, it is alleged by him that on 23.07.2020 at about 4.00 p.m., when he was proceeding in his car towards Hesaraghatta, 3 two persons came in a Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-51-AC-2139 and hit their vehicle to his car and thereafter pointing a knife to his neck, robbed a cash of Rs.2,000/-. They fisted him on his face. Two more persons came in another two wheeler and all the four assaulted him and seeing the public approaching, they sped away.
4. The FIR was lodged against four unknown persons. The further statement of the complainant was recorded on 26.07.2020, wherein he has alleged that his co-brother by name Srinivas and himself are having a dispute in connection with two guntas of land situated in Hesaraghatta Village and therefore, they were not in talking terms. In this connection, at the instigation of Srinivas, all the accused including the present petitioner has committed the offence with an intention to do away with his life. The petitioner arraigned as accused no.8 came to be arrested on 30.07.2020.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the entire allegations are false. The 4 petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence. Even according to the complainant, only four persons came in two two-wheelers and he has not mentioned the presence of any other persons at the spot. However, in view of the dispute between the petitioner and his co-brother Srinivas who is arraigned as accused No.7, he has implicated other accused in a false case. He submits that the petitioner is already arrested and interrogated and not required for any further investigation. He submits that the petitioner is a respectable person and he is a licensed vegetable agent at the market in Doddaballapura and there are no bad antecedents. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, the learned HCGP has contended that in the further statement of the complainant he has specifically stated that four persons who initially came to the spot have mentioned the names of other accused including the name of the present petitioner. He submits that the car belonging to the petitioner which was used in the commission of the offence has been seized. Therefore, 5 he contends that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief, as the investigation is still in progress and charge sheet is yet to be filed.
7. I have perused the material on record. In the FIR, the complainant has stated that initially two persons came on a Honda Activa KA-51-AC-2139 and by showing a knife, fisted him on his face and also robbed a sum of Rs.2,000/- from him. Two more persons came in another two-wheeler and all of them assaulted him with hands.
8. The complainant has not stated the presence of any other accused persons near the spot of incident. In the further statement, he has stated that in view of some land dispute with accused No.7 Srinivas, his co-brother, all the accused persons have conspired and they have attempted to commit his murder. Hence, the Investigating authority gave requisition to alter the offences to one under Sections 120B, 307 and 397 read with Section 149 of IPC. 6
9. The name of the petitioner is not in the FIR. His presence at the scene of offence is also not spoken at the earliest point of time. At this stage, there are no material to show that even the petitioner herein has either conspired or assaulted the complainant. The petitioner is already arrested and interrogated. In the facts and circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I pass the following ;
ORDER Criminal petition is allowed.
The petitioner - Accused No.8 shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.118/2020 of Soladevanahalli Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 307, 397 read with Section 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court/committal court. 7
(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.
(iii) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police station once in fifteen days, till filing of the charge sheet.
(iv) Petitioner shall furnish his correct address and shall intimate change of address, if any.
(v) Petitioner shall be regular in attending the court proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE snc