Allowed

Sri. Kumar S/O Maruti Hanamikki v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2021CRL.P/100549/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 439 CrPC, the Karnataka High Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner-accused No.4 in a case involving theft and attempt to murder. The court granted bail invoking principles of parity as senior accused were already on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties subject to conditions not to commit offences, tamper witnesses, and to appear as required.

Sri. Kumar S/O Maruti Hanamikki Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100549 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI KUMAR SON OF MARUTI HANAMIKKI AGE: 22 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O KANCHAKARWADI TQ: RAIBAG DIST:BELAGAVI – 591 317

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI:K ANAND KUMAR, ADV)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RAIBAG POLICE STATION BY STATE PUBIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH – 580 011

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI: RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF Cr.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED NO.4 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.141 OF 2019 RAIBAG POLICE STATION IN (CRL.MISC.NO.5041 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDIITONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT CHIKODI) FOR THE

¶16

¶17

OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 353, 307, 427, 429 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petitioner-accused No.4 is before this Court seeking grant of regular bail in Crime No.141 of 2019 of Raibag Police Station registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 and five others for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 307, 427, 429, 397 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for the sake of brevity) on the basis of first information lodged by the informant Sri.N.Mahesh.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that, Sri.N.Mahesh, CPI of Raibag Cirlce filed the first information stating that he along with other staffs were checking the vehicle at Katakabhavi Cross road on 24.07.2019 from 4.30 a.m. At about 5.30 a.m., they noticed one Mahindra Bolero pick up goods vehicle coming from Mugalkhod and when the informant gave signal to stop the vehicle, the driver tried to run over the vehicle on

¶22

the informant and thereafter sped away towards Katakabhavi. Immediately, the informant chased the goods vehicle and

¶23

¶24

noticed its registration number as KA 23 A 2955, also found that several sheeps were being carried in the vehicle and there were 4 to 5 persons inside the vehicle. On seeing the police jeep chasing the goods vehicle, the persons who were sitting in the vehicle induced the driver to speed away so as to escape from the police. However, the police chased the goods vehicle and way laid it. In the meantime, the persons who were in the vehicle started throwing the sheep from the moving vehicle. After stopping the vehicle, some of the inmates got down and started running away. However, the driver of the vehicle could be apprehended and he is Ashok Chandrappa, who is arrayed as accused No.1 He informed about other accused who were in the vehicle and it is found that the accused have committed theft of sheep and were transporting the same to the slaughter house. The vehicle in question was seized along with the sheeps and a case was registered against all those persons.

¶25

Heard Sri.K.Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Ramesh B.Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State through video conferencing. Perused the materials on record.

¶26

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4. In all, 9 persons were arrayed as accused in this case. The present petitioner was apprehended during January 2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. There is absolutely no material to connect the present petitioner to the offence in question. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are already enlarged on bail as per the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Without assigning any reasons, the bail application filed by the present petitioner came to be rejected. The offences are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶28

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. There is one more criminal case registered against the petitioner. Therefore, he is a habitual offender. The petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail

¶29

¶30

as there is every possibility of he committing similar offence or may abscond or threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

In light of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is:

¶32

“Whether the petitioner is entitled

¶33

to be released on bail?”

¶34

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶35

REASONS

¶36

It is the contention of prosecution that the

¶37

accused have stolen the sheep and were transporting the same in the goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA 23 A 2955. When the informant gave signal to stop the vehicle, they tried to run over the vehicle on the informant and thereby, they have committed the offences as stated above. Admittedly, the investigation is completed and charge sheet is

¶38

also filed. It is not in dispute that accused Nos.1 to 3 are already enlarged on bail. The present petitioner is arrayed as

¶39

¶40

accused No.4. He is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the principles of parity. No materials are placed before the Court to contend that he is a habitual offender. Therefore, I am of the opinion that reasonable conditions may be imposed to take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petition is allowed.

¶43

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.141 of 2019 of Raibag Police Station on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶44

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶45

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶46

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶47

¶48

It is needless to state that, in case, if the petitioner violates any of these conditions, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

*bgn/-

Sri. Kumar S/O Maruti Hanamikki v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kumar S/O Maruti Hanamikki 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

Kumar S/O Siddappa Swateppagol @ Godchi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Milind S/O Tanaji Kadolkar Vs Shri. Naveed S/O Nazafali Khatib

Saresh K P @ Suresh S/O K.P.Dinesh Vs Suresh Babu S/O Sathyanarayana Rao

Saddam Hussain S/O Bashasab Pailwan Vs the State of Karnataka

Maruti Balu Kitawadakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Manju S/O Yallappa Doddamani Vs the State of Karnataka