High Court denied bail to the petitioner accused of dacoity. The court held that possession of weapons and credible police information justified remand in custody.
Criminal Bail Petition rejected; petitioner to remain in judicial custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15033/2013
BETWEEN :
Vijay S/o Ramarao Tarage, Age: 24 Years, Occ: Cooli, R/o: KEB Colony, Gulabarga.
… PETITIONER
(By Shri. S.S.Kumman, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka Through University Police Station. Gulbarga.
… RESPONDENT
(By Shri Sanjay.A.Patil, Additional State Public Prosecutor)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this court to release the petitioner on bail in Crime NO.192/2012 of University Police Station, Gulbarga, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 of Indian Penal Code.
2
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.
that the Circle Police Inspector, MB Nagar Police Station, had received credible information that at about 1.30 a.m. there were unknown persons preparing to commit dacoity near Sannur cross. Therefore he had proceeded there along with his staff and had noticed that there were seven persons, including the present petitioner, at the spot and they were immediately apprehended. On their personal search it was found that they were in possession of at 4 talwars, 7 black coloured face masks, 1 iron rod, 1 cycle chain, 2 packets of chili powder and an amount of Rs.920/-, and 3 Radium number plates, 1 rope, and they were using a jeep. Therefore he had produced the said seven accused persons including the petitioner with the spot panchanama
3
report and filed the complaint. On the basis of that a case has been registered against the petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code,1860.
4
remand the petitioner to judicial custody unless the prosecution establishes its case beyond all reasonable doubt. At this stage of the matter the petitioner is not seeking acquittal but is merely asserting that on the say of the police, the petitioner being kept in custody indefinitely along with other persons who may be seasoned criminals would result in miscarriage of justice and therefore seeks enlargement on bail.
5
to the attention of this court that one other accused who was also said to have been involved in the same incident has already been granted bail by this court in Criminal Petition No.15028/2013, dated 17.01.2013. From a perusal of that order however it is noticed that this court has not assigned any reasons whatsoever, to place that petitioner on a different pedestal. Hence, that cannot be a precedent and the petition cannot claim a parity of reasoning in seeking grant of bail, this court finds no reason to enlarge the petitioner on bail. On the other hand the circumstances are strong enough to detain him in custody till after the trial. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
msr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code given the allegations of dacoity and possession of weapons.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vijay S/o Ramarao Tarage
The State of Karnataka
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
