Karnataka High Court
Latha W/O Raju vs The State Through on 16 August, 2016
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200900/2016
Between
Latha W/o Raju
Age: 39 years,
Occ: Household
R/o Near Keshav Temple,
Vijaypaur
Tq. Devanahalli, Bangalore
...Petitioner
(By Sri Nandkishore Boob, Advocate)
AND:
The State through Bhimarayanagudi
Police Station.
...Respondent
(By Sri P.S. Patil, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to release
the petitioner on bail in Crime No.12/2016 of
Bhimarayanagudi Police Station Tq. Shahapur, which is
2
registered for the offences Punishable under Section
489(B) and (C) read with 149 of IPC.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the Respondent/ State.
2. This is the petition filed by the petitioner/ accused No.3 under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking her release on bail of the offences punishable under sections 489-B and 489-C R/w section 34 of IPC.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that the complainant Satishkumar is the PSI of Bhimarayangudi police station. He received credible information that in a house bearing No. R-5 at UKP Camp, Mudabol village accused No.1 Jagannath and others were about to circulate the 3 counterfeit notes and therefore he gave the message to Dy.S.P. Yadgir on e-mail. Then the Dy.S.P. directed to conduct a raid along with panchas and bank officers and his staff. Therefore, CW 1 Satishkumar PSI along with panchas i.e., CW 2, CW 3 and CW 13, bank employee and his staff CW 6 to 10 rushed to UKP camp in a Government jeep and conducted raid on the said house. In the said house three persons were present. CW 1 and his staff caught hold two persons but one person ran away from the said place. On interrogation they said their names as Jagannath S/o Ramayya Tattikamni Accused No.1, Lata W/o Raju present petitioner who is arrayed accused No.3 and the name of the person who ran away from the said house Honnappa S/o Mareppa accused No.2. Accused No.3 the present petitioner informed the complainant that she had given counterfeit notes to accused Nos. 1 and 2 Jagannath and Honnappa for circulation. Further materials placed on record also goes to show the panchanama was conducted in the presence of panch witnesses and alleged counterfeit notes were seized from the 4 possession of the present petitioner and accused No.1. Panchanama was also drawn.
4. Earlier the present petitioner applied for bail before this Court and this Court by its order dated 11th March 2016 passed in Criminal Petition No. 200340/2016 passed the order and thereby rejected the bail petition. It has been observed by this Court while rejecting the bail petition that she may tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. Therefore it was the observation at that stage the petitioner was not entitled for bail. However, soon after filing of the charge-sheet, petitioner may move the Court for grant of bail. With these observations earlier petition came to be dismissed.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, earlier bail order passed by this Court and also the orders of the Sessions Court which are produced by the petitioner herein. Both sides made the submission that now the investigation has been 5 completed and charge-sheet has been filed. At this stage nothing is to be seized from the possession of the present petitioner. Because in the panchanama itself it is mentioned notes in possession of the present petitioner have already been seized in the presence of panch witnesses. When investigation is already completed and charge-sheet has been filed, the alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, by imposing stringent conditions the petitioner can be admitted to bail.
Accordingly the petition is allowed. Petitioner/ accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions;
(1) The petitioner has to execute her personal bond for Rs.1.00 lakh with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. (2) She shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. 6 (3) She shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without its prior permission. (4) She has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE *MK