Allowed

Premchand Jain @ Prem v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2020CRL.P/5582/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under S. 439 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner (Accused No.1) on bail. The court noted the petitioner faces identical charges to another accused already on bail and directed him to execute a bond. Conditions of appearance and conduct were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for like-sum.

Premchand Jain @ Prem Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

¶4

CRL.P. NO. 5582/2020

¶5

BETWEEN

¶6

PREMCHAND JAIN @ PREM S/O BHAVAR LAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT 510, 1^ST FLOOR, NEW ANAND COMPLEX, NAGAVARA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-45. ... PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI.GIRISH R, ADVOCATE )

¶8

AND

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PULAKESHI NAGAR PS, NOW REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT

¶10

(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.125/2016 OF PULAKESHINAGAR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 397, 201 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND ETC.,

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/ PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for Respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶16

Considered the explanation submitted by the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, wherein it is stated that, after receipt of copy of the order passed by this Court, the case was transferred from XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-22) to LVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-58) and the file was received on 24.12.2019 and thereafter the case was posted on various dates for hearing on application under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., and when the case was posted on 05.03.2020, the witnesses were not present and hence, once again summons were issued to the witnesses (PW.2 & CW.4) and also issued show cause notice to the Inspector of Pulakeshinagar Police Station seeking explanation for non-service of summons. It is further stated that, the present petitioner (Accused No.1) is in judicial custody and Accused No.2 is on bail, and on 15.10.2020 the

¶17

¶18

petitioner (Accused No. 1) was not produced from JC through VC and Accused No.2 was also not present, and to secure the accused, the case has been posted to 03.11.2020.

¶19

Even though the trial Court had released Accused No.2 on bail, yet the bail to the petitioner herein viz., Accused No.1 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2018 mainly on the ground that the material collected by the Investigating Agency prima facie pointed-out the involvement of the petitioner (Accused No.1) in the alleged crime and further he being a construction labourer, having no fixed place of abode, it would render difficult to secure him for the purpose of trial. The said order was passed on 29.05.2018. Till today no progress has been made in the case.

¶20

In the said circumstances, it would be proper to grant bail to the petitioner (Accused No.1), especially when he is facing the same charge on identical set of evidence as that of Accused No.2, who is already enlarged on bail.

¶21

¶22

Having regard to the above circumstances,

¶23

the petition is allowed . The petitioner (Accused No.1) – Premachand Jain @ Prem is directed to be enlarged on bail on he furnishing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to further conditions that,-

¶24

i) he shall regularly appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing without fail;

¶25

ii) he shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner;

¶26

iii) he shall not leave the territorial limits of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court;

¶27

iv) he shall not get involved in similar offences.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

KGR*

Premchand Jain @ Prem v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premchand Jain @ Prem 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

K. v. Nagaraj @ Swastik Nagaraj Vs State by Lokayuktha Police

K. v. Nagaraj @ Swastik Nagaraj Vs State by Lokayuktha Police

K. v. Nagaraj @ Swastik Nagaraj Vs State by Lokayuktha Police

Smt. Anjana a Shanthaveer Vs Sri. Babu Rao Chunchansur

Lokesh Vs State of Karnataka

Dayanand Vs State of Karnataka