Allowed

Nemaji S/O Iglis Kale and Ors. v. the State through

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2016CRL.P/201090/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the release of the petitioners on bail in connection with Crime No.72/2015 (IPC 399), imposing identical conditions as in a related matter.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioners on bail subject to executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000, not tampering with witnesses, and regular court appearance.

Nemaji S/O Iglis Kale and Ors. Vs the State through — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201090/2016

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

NEMAJI S/O IGLIS KALE AGE: 65 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O KODGOAN TQ. PITHAN DIST. AURANGABAD MAHARASTRA STATE

¶10

SAGAR S/O ANAND BHOSLE AGE: 20 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O KODGOAN TQ. PITHAN DIST. AURANGABAD MAHARASTRA STATE

¶11

AKHIL S/O NEMAJI KALE AGE: 20 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O KODGOAN TQ. PITHAN DIST. AURANGABAD MAHARASTRA STATE

¶12

ASIN S/O NANDU KALE AGE: 19 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O PANDARPUR MAHARASTRA STATE

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE THROUGH GOGI POLICE STATION TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH …RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI P.S. PATIL, HCGP)

¶19

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE BAIL PETITION AND TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN S.C. NO.38/2016 PENDING BEFORE THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIRI, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 399 OF IPC.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of

¶24

Cr.P.C., seeking release of the petitioners on bail, concerning S.C.No.38/2016, which is pending before the District and Sessions Judge at Yadgir.

¶25

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in respect of Crime No.72/2015, two petitioners had filed Criminal Petition No.201057/2016 and this court by order dated 07/09/2016 has released Accused Nos.4 and 7 on bail, subject to certain conditions. He would submit that in respect of these petitioners also, who were arrested in respect of the very same Crime No.72/2015, a similar order could be made.

¶27

Learned Govt. Pleader submitted that he is aware of the order dated 07/09/2016 in which, Accused Nos.4 and 7 in respect of Crime No.72/2015 were released on bail by this court in the aforementioned criminal petition and that the petitioners in this petition also could be released on similar terms.

¶28

I have perused certified copy of the order dated 07/09/2016 passed in Criminal Petition.No.201057/2016. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-

¶29

¶30

“4. I have perused the order dated 14.9.2015 passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.200859/2015 filed at the crime stage, which was rejected with liberty to approach after completion of investigation. So also, I have perused the order of this Court dated 22.2.2016 passed in Crl.P.No.200059/2016. I have also perused the grounds urged in the petition and the entire materials produced by the petitioners along with the petition.

¶31

5. Now the investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed. It is submitted that since one year petitionersaccused Nos.4 and 7 are in custody. The alleged offence under Section 399 of IPC is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The apprehension of the prosecution is that as the petitioners-accused are from Maharashtra State, they may abscond and put hurdles in further progress of the case, if they are released on bail. For this apprehension of the prosecution, stringent conditions can be imposed, which would safeguard the interest of the prosecution.

¶32

¶33

6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 7 are ordered to be released on bail for the alleged offence punishable under Section 399 of IPC registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No.72/2015, subject to the following conditions:

¶34

i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/each with a solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

¶35

ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶36

iii. Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.”

¶37

Having regard to the observations made by

¶38

this court in the aforesaid petition, the petitioners herein, who are Accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6, are ordered to be released on bail for the alleged offence punishable under Section 399 of IPC, which has been registered in the respondent – Police Station in

¶39

¶40

Crime No.72/2015, subject to the following

¶41

conditions:-

¶42

i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with a solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

¶43

ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶44

iii. Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.

¶45

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid

¶46

terms.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

*mvs

Nemaji S/O Iglis Kale and Ors. v. the State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nemaji S/O Iglis Kale and Ors. v. the State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Erappa S/O Amarappa Vs Peddappa S/O Hosgeppa and Ors.

Mahadevi W/O Shivalingappa Khelge Vs Smt. Bassamma W/O Shivasharanappa Ramni

Nagangouda S/O Lingappa Police Patil Vs Mallikarjun S/O Mallappagouda B.Police Patil

Kallappa Vs Saibanna

Yenkamma W/O Sharanappa Yalavar Vs Shivakumar S/O Ambruth

Sri. Channagond S/O Kajappa Naduvinkeri Vs Smt. Savita W/O Channagond Naduvinkeri and Anr.