Karnataka High Court
Keraba And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 June, 2021
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200508/2021
BETWEEN:
1. Keraba S/o. Khandoba Jadhav,
Age : 60 years, Occ : Labour,
2. Satyaprakash S/o. Ranaba Suryavanshi,
Age : 60 years, Occ : Labour,
3. Akash S/o. Ramesh Gayakwad,
Age : 31 years, Occ: Labour,
4. Khandoba S/o. Kherba Jadhav,
Age : 35 years, Occ : Labour.
All R/o. Village Boori Salagar,
Latur District (M.S.) - 413512
As per remand yadi dated 04.02.2021.
... Petitioners
(By Sri Sanjay A.PAtil, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
through Police, Kushnoor Police Station,
Tq :Aurad, Dist : Bidar - 585 401.
Represented by Addl. SPP,
2
High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench.
... Respondent
(By Sri Sharanabasappa M.Patil, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to allow the petition thereby enlarge the
petitioners on bail in Crime No.58/2019 registered by
respondent Police/Kushnoor Police Station, Dist : Bidar for
the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC as per
remand yadi dated 04.02.2021 now pending on the file of
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Aurad.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C') for enlarging them on regular bail in Crime No.58/2019 of Kushnoor Police Station, Bidar registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC').
2. The factual matrix leading to the case is that the complainant is resident of Hedagapur Village, Aurad Taluk, Bidar District and she is residing along with her younger son. That on 31.10.2019, at night she slept in the 3 house and in the mid night at 12.00 O'clock she came out of the house in order to attend the nature's call and after attending the nature's call at 00.30 hours on 01.11.2019, when she was about to enter her house a person came from backside and snatched her golden chain and ran away which was weighing about 01 tola 05 gram, worth of Rs.42,000/-. She has also asserted that the assailant who snatched the golden chain was wearing black baniyan and black half pant and she could not identify him and in this regard she lodged a complaint. On the basis of the complaint a crime was registered in Crime No.58/2019 against unknown accused. Subsequently, the present petitioners were apprehended by Bhalki Police in Crime No.15/2021, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and there the petitioners were interrogated and they have confessed the guilt and the present petitioner No.1 led them to Bori Salagar Village in Latur District of Maharashtra State and produced the stolen articles including the golden chain snatched away in this case. On the basis of confession statement and 4 recovery the Investigating Officer has implicated the present petitioners in this case also.
3. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar and their bail petition came to be rejected. Hence, without any alternative the petitioners have filed the present bail petition by approaching this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State at length and perused the records.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there are no material eyewitnesses and the Investigating Officer has also not conducted the test identification parade and only on the basis of the alleged recovery the present petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He further asserted that the voluntary statement relied upon by the prosecution cannot be looked into and the petitioners are residents of 5 Maharashtra State having deep roots in the society and they are having permanent address and if they are continued to be in custody it amounts to trial punishment. He further contended that they are ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court and hence, it is prayed for admitting them on regular bail.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the bail petition contending that the petitioners committed robbery of golden chain from the neck of the complainant in the night hours and they are habitual offender which is evident from the mahazar and different complaints are lodged against them.
7. It is also contended that though the offence is triable by the learned Magistrate but it is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years and further he contended that the petitioners are residents of Maharashtra State and in case they are enlarged on bail there is possibility of 6 jumping on bail. Hence, he has sought for rejection of the bail petition.
8. Having heard the arguments of both the parties and on perusing the records, it is evident that in the instant case robbery was said to have been committed on the intervening of 31.10.2019 and 01.11.2019. The allegations were regarding the petitioner No.1 snatching away the golden gundumala chain from the neck of the complainant and the petitioner No.2 was guarding the same. It is further asserted that the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been laid.
9. The remand yadi submitted by the Investigating Officer disclose that he has sought remand of the present petitioners in this crime also. The complainant admittedly is unable to identify the present petitioners. The allegations in the charge sheet are only in respect of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, actively participating in the crime. It is also submitted that petitioners have been granted regular bail in other crimes. The offence in the instant case 7 is not punishable with death or life imprisonment. That they are permanent residents of Maharashtra State, cannot be a ground for rejection of the bail petition and considering the nature and gravity of the offence and considering the fact that the entire prosecution case is based on recovery alone. I do not find any impediment in admitting the petitioners on bail subject to certain conditions. Hence, the petition is needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The petition is allowed.
Petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on regular bail in Crime No.58/2019 of Kushnoor Police Station, Bidar District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC, on each of them executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, subject to following conditions:-8
i) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;
ii) They shall appear regularly before the Trial Court during the course of hearing unless they are specifically exempted by the Court;
iii) They shall mark their attendance before the SHO on every 1st and 15th day of each month atleast for a period of six months.
iv) They shall not involve in any criminal activities;
v) While releasing the petitioners, the Jail Authorities shall follow the SOP issued by State Government.
Sd/-
JUDGE sn