Allowed

Sri.Sunil S/O Sidram Kshetri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2019CRL.P/101948/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court conviction court allowed an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for accused No.6 in a dacoity case, noting the name was absent from the FIR and arraying relied on doubtful confessions, and granted bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed anticipatory bail and ordered to be released on bail upon arrest on furnishing a self bond for Rs.1 lakh with two sureties for the likesum.

Sri.Sunil S/O Sidram Kshetri Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.G.M.PATIL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101948/2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.SUNIL S/O SIDRAM KSHETRI, AGE 23 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O CHANDACHAN, TQ. INDdI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.VISHWANATH S BICHAGATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PSI, KATKOL P.S., REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, S P P OFFICE, DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP.)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN KATKOL P.S. CRIME NO.249/2017 (C.C.NO.645/2018) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC COURT, RAMDURGA, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 395 OF IPC.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This is an anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for enlargement of the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.249/2017 of Katkol Police Station now pending in C.C.No.645/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramdurg for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC.

¶20

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 29.11.2017 one B.A.Narsimhamurty of Arasikere town, filed a complaint. He has alleged in the complaint that he is doing business of selling sugar and he used to purchase the sugar from various sugar factories. On 24.11.2017 he contacted Indian Cane Power Limited, Mudhol and requested them to supply 300 quintal sugar bags and for that he had paid Rs.10,71,000/-

¶21

¶22

through RTGS from his bank i.e. Karnataka Bank, Arasikere Branch. On the same day sugar was delivered to him. It is further alleged that for transportation of said sugar the complainant contacted one lorry agent of Belagavi i.e. Javed of Roshan Roadlines, Belagavi and he arranged a lorry bearing KA-43/6189 and as per the instruction of the complainant 300 quintal sugar bags were loaded in the said lorry in the premises of aforesaid sugar factory at about 8.00 p.m. on 24.11.2017. One Ramakrishna was the driver and Kashinath Muruti Gavali was the clearer in the said lorry. The complainant instructed the driver to deliver the sugar bags to one Rajendra of Hiriyur. On 25.11.2017 when the complainant continuously contacted the driver of the lorry by mobile phone it was switched of and he came to know that the driver did not deliver the sugar bags to Rajendra of

¶23

¶24

Hiriyur. The complainant informed the same to the lorry agent Javed through mobile phone. On suspicion on the driver and the cleaner of the lorry, the complainant lodged a complaint. On his complaint the respondent police have registered the case for the aforesaid offence. After completing the investigation the police have filed the charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶25

The petitioner who is arrayed as

¶26

accused No.6 in the charge sheet has stated that he has been falsely involved in the crime. The charge sheet discloses that the police have arrested accused Nos.2 and 5 on 04.07.2018 and on their alleged confessional statements he has been arrayed as accused No.6 in the case. He is the only bread earner in the family. He is ready and willing to abide by the conditions

¶27

¶28

which may be imposed by this Court and also to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶30

petitioner and the learned HCGP.

¶31

The petitioner who is arrayed as

¶32

accused No.6 approached the Sessions Judge, Belagavi seeking anticipatory bail, only after coming to know of filing the charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate wherein his name has been shown as accused No.6 and it appears NBW was also ordered against him as he is shown as absconding in the charge sheet. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner stating that

¶33

there is a prima facie material against the petitioner for the alleged offence against him and he is absconding since the date of offence and that now NBW has been issued against him.

¶34

¶35

Admittedly the name of the petitioner

¶36

was not found in the FIR. The statement of the

¶37

owner of the vehicle K.Ramakrishna goes to show that he came to know about the dacoity of the load of sugar from his lorry in the morning of 25.11.2017 when his cleaner Kashinath informed the same him over a mobile phone. Therefore the complaint should have been filed on the same day. However, the complaint was lodged on 29.11.2017. The material in the charge sheet does not disclose that the petitioner herein was absconding and was not available for arrest during the course of the investigation. It is not disputed that the

¶38

petitioner is permanent resident of Chandachan, Indi Taluk, Vijayapur District having movable and immovable properties and residing with his kith and kin. The alleged offence is not

¶39

punishable with death or imprisonment for life

¶40

¶41

and is triable by the Court of Sessions. Further arraying the petitioner as accused No.6 appears

¶42

to be only on the basis of the voluntary statements of accused Nos.2 and 5, the admissibility of which itself is doubtful. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to imposing certain conditions to see that he will appear before the Court regularly and will not tamper the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial of the case.

¶43

Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The anticipatory bail petition filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner

¶46

¶47

is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.249/2017 of Katkol Police Station now pending in C.C.No.645/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC Court,

¶48

Ramdurg, on the following conditions:

¶49

The petitioner is directed to appear before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶50

On appearance of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a self bond for a sum of Rs.1 lakh with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶51

The petitioner shall not threaten or try to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶52

The petitioner shall appear before the Committal Court or the Trial Court regularly and co-operate in concluding the trial at the earliest.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Sri.Sunil S/O Sidram Kshetri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Sunil S/O Sidram Kshetri v. the State of Karnataka

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

Anand Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Pandurang S/O Ganapati Kamkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Yaseen S/O Dastagir Malidwale Vs Azizkhan S/O Lazam Tajoddin

Sri.Rakesh @ Rakhi Son of Tayappa Vs State of Karnataka

Vittal S/O Laxmappa Nadagoudra Vs the State of Karnataka

Basappa @ Basavaraja @ Bassi Vs the State of Karnataka