Dismissed

Ganesh @ Prathamesh Shivaji Gore v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2020CRL.P/100238/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka rejected the petitioners' application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a theft case, holding that their involvement in six other criminal cases and status as habitual offenders precluded such relief.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail rejected; petitioners not entitled to bail due to criminal record and absconding behavior.

Ganesh @ Prathamesh Shivaji Gore Vs State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100238 OF 2020

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

GANESH SHIVAJI GORE, AGE : 19 YEARS, OCCP : STUDENT, R/O.TIKLIWADI, TQ : SHIROL, DT : KOLHAPUR-MAHARASTRA.

¶7

NAVAJEEVAN VITTAL GORE, AGE : 21 YEARS,OCCP : STUDENT, R/O.TIKLIWADI, TQ : SHIROL, DT : KOLHAPUR-MAHARASTRA.

¶8

….PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SADALAGA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. AND FOR GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT/SADALAGA POLICE TO RELEASE THEM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN CRIME NO.232 OF 2018 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 379 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKODI IN C.C.NO.1504 OF 2018 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioners under section 438 of Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest in Crime No.232 of 2018 of Sadalaga Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC.

¶19

The facts briefly stated are that on the

¶20

complaint filed by one Babaso Annu Birje of Rooyi village, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that on 21.02.2018 his motorcycle was stolen by unknown persons. During the investigation the police officers seized the

¶21

¶22

motorcycle of the complainant and other 17

¶23

motorcycles from the custody of other accused. The police officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioners. Hence apprehending the arrest and detention the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP.

¶25

The main contention of the learned counsel

¶26

for the petitioners is that there is a delay in filing the complaint. The learned Sessions Court has rejected the bail application on the reason that the accused are involved in several other criminal cases of theft and they are habitual offenders. In the event of arrest and detention, the petitioners would be put to great hardship and injustice.

¶27

Per Contra , the learned HCGP relying on the report of the Investigating Officer, submitted that

¶28

¶29

the petitioners are involved in six other criminal cases and they are absconding. The Court has issued NBW against these petitioners. Under these circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶30

As could be seen from the order passed by the learned Sessions Court, it is held that the petitioners are involved in several other criminal cases pertaining to the offence under Section 379 of IPC. In addition to that, the submission of the learned HCGP and report of the Investigating Officer confirms that the petitioners are involved in six other criminal cases, but they are not traced despite of issuance of NBW. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the learned Sessions Court cannot be faulted with.

¶31

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no grounds to hold that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Thus, the

¶32

¶33

petitioners having criminal antecedents are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Petition is rejected.

¶36

SD/JUDGE

¶37

CKK

Ganesh @ Prathamesh Shivaji Gore v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh @ Prathamesh Shivaji Gore v. 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

Sayed Mohammad S/O.Syed Mahibubsab Vs the State

Santosh S/O Peerappa Shirur Vs State of Karnataka

Basavaraj Singh @ Balavanth Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Vinayak S/O. Dharmanna Bidnal Vs the State of Karnataka by

Lokesh S/O Nagappa Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Devendrappa S/O Fakkirappa Navalgund Vs the State of Karnataka