Karnataka High Court
Veeresh S/O Sanna Kuramappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2021
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200746/2021
BETWEEN:
Veeresh S/o. Sanna Kuramappa
Chennadasar, Age: 21 years
Occ: Agriculture, R/at Rajiv Gandhi
Nagar, Tq: Manvi, Dist: Raichur
... Petitioner
(By Sri J. Augustin, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Through SHO
Manvi Police Station
Represented by the Additional
State Public Prosecutor, High Court
of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench
... Respondent
(By Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to allow this petition and release the
petitioner/accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.182/2020 for
2
the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 511
of IPC, pending on the file of JMFC Judge, Manvi vide
C.C.No.23/2021.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Manvi police station Crime No.182/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 511 of IPC, pending on the file of JMFC Judge, Manvi.
2. The brief factual matrix leading to this case are that on 05.11.2020 at about 2.00 a.m. the complainant was on patrolling duty, on Manvi - Sirwar road and near Hirekotnekal village, in the Branch of State Bank of India, they found that the shutter of the Bank was opened half and on hearing sound of the vehicle, three persons came out and ran away from the Bank and immediately they chased and apprehended the present petitioner. It is 3 noticed that there was an attempt to commit theft of the Bank and in this regard, this case came to be registered.
3. The application filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate seeking bail came to be rejected. Thereafter, he has approached the learned Sessions Judge, Raichur seeking regular bail and his bail petition again came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, he has approached this Court for admitting him on regular bail.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the records.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 05.11.2020 and charge sheet has been already submitted. It is alleged that there was allegation regarding attempt of theft in the Bank and the present petitioner is said to have 4 been apprehended at the spot, when the complainant noticed opening of shutter of the Bank. It is asserted that the investigation is already completed and presence of the present petitioner is no more required and he is permanent resident of the address given in the cause title of the petition and undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. He further contended that the offences alleged against the petitioner are not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment. Hence, it is prayed for admitting the petitioner on bail.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has seriously objected the bail petition on the ground that it is a serious offence as the present petitioner along with other two accused persons have tried to rob the Bank itself, wherein, the money of the depositors is deposited. He further invited the attention of this Court by stating that the present petitioner is already involved in Manvi police station Crime No.139/2020 for similar 5 offences and hence, he submits that he is a habitual offender and in case, the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of he tampering the prosecution witnesses and indulging in similar offences. As such, he has sought for rejection of the bail petition.
7. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the petitioner has been prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 511 of IPC. As per the case of the prosecution, on 05.11.2020, the complainant and other police officials were on patrolling duty and at about 2.00 a.m., when they came near Branch of State Bank of India in Hirekotnekal village, they found that the shutter of the Bank was half opened and in the mean while, on hearing the vehicle sound, three persons tried to ran away by coming out of Bank and the complainant has apprehended the present petitioner. It is alleged that they after breaking the lock of the shutter of the Bank, entered the Bank in order to commit theft and there was an attempt to 6 break strong room of Bank. In this regard, this case came to be registered. The maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence is ten years. However, the prosecution is seriously asserting that the offence is serious in nature as the petitioner has attempted to rob the Bank itself. At the same time, it is also important to note hear that the petitioner is also involved in Manvi police station Crime No.139/2020 for similar offences. It appears that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in similar offences. No doubt, the petitioner is in custody since 05.11.2020, but, that itself is not a ground for admitting him on bail. Since the investigation is concluded and charge sheet has been laid, the petitioner can seek for speedy trial. Looking to the facts and circumstances and seriousness of the offence, this is not a fit case, wherein, the discretion of this Court can be exercised in favour of the petitioner by admitting him on bail. Hence, the petition is devoid of any merits and needs to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: 7
ORDER The petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srt