Allowed

Vinod Kumar @ Vinod @ Tollu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2021CRL.P/1188/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Kerala High Court granted bail to an accused accused No.6 alleged of dacoity. The court held that though not an instigator due to hospital confinement, the petitioner benefited from dacoity proceeds. Finding parity with co-accused, bail was granted on personal bond.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is allowed; petitioner-accused No.6 directed to be released on bail on a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties.

Vinod Kumar @ Vinod @ Tollu Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1188 of 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

VINOD KUMAR @ VINOD @ TOLLU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O SHIVARAMU, R/AT NO.371, GOLLARAHATTI, MACHOHALLI, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 562 130.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TAVAREKERE P.S., REPRESENTED BY SPP., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.31/2020 OF TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 395 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.31/2020 in C.C.No.3835/2020 registered by Tavarekere Police for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that on the complaint of one Manjunath filed on 31.01.2020 at 11 p.m. alleging that when he was in his office i.e. Tejus Distributors, some unknown persons came to his office, closed the shutters, threatened him by showing deadly weapons and robbed Rs.2,50,000/- from the cash box, 10 grams neck chain, coins of Rs.5,000/-, gold finger rings weighing 8 grams, a gold chain weighing 6 grams from the cash box, cheque book ATM card and DL etc., of the complainant and went away. After lodging of the complaint, the Police arrested 5 accused persons and showing the present petitioner as absconding in the charge sheet. The petitioner moved a bail petition before the Sessions Judge, which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶21

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated. In fact, he was in the hospital on 29.01.2020 for having sustained stab injury and he was discharged only on 01.02.2020. Later, again he was admitted in some other hospital namely, Reethu hospital and he is not aware of the commission of the offence. The accused is said to have been arrested by the Police through body warrant and remanded to judicial custody. Therefore, he prayed for grant of bail.

¶23

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State objected the bail petition and contended that though the petitioner has not participated in the commission of the offence, but he is the beneficiary of the dacoity amount as other accused persons robbed money from the complainant and paid the hospital charges for discharging him from the hospital. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the bail petition.

¶24

Upon considering the arguments of learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the records, admittedly, the

¶25

4

¶26

case was registered against five unknown persons who said to have committed the dacoity in the shop of the complainant. As per the remand application of accused No.3, accused No.6, the present petitioner, is shown as absconding. It is revealed that the accused persons have committed robbery for paying the hospital charges of this petitioner who was admitted in the hospital with grievous injury i.e. stab injury. A case has been registered on the complaint in Crime No.40/2020. The co-accused No.3 has been granted bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.4387/2020 dated 05.10.2020 and accused No.5 is said to have been granted bail by the Sessions Judge. The allegation against the petitioner is lighter than the allegations made against accused Nos.1 to 5. The petitioner-accused No.6 may be the beneficiary out of the amount of dacoity committed by accused Nos.1 to 5, but it cannot be said that this petitioner instigated the other persons to commit dacoity or robbery as he was in the hospital under treatment. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and as the alleged offence is though non-bailable, but not punishable either with death or imprisonment of life and as the co-

¶27

¶28

accused were granted bail by this Court and the Sessions Judge, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. Hence, I pass the following;

¶29

Order

¶30

The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶31

The Committal Court or Trial Court is directed to release the petitioner-accused No.6 on bail in Crime No.31/2020 of Tavarekere Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-

¶32

i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or the Committal Court.

¶33

ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences.

¶34

iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶35

iv) Petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court without causing any delay.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Vinod Kumar @ Vinod @ Tollu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar @ Vinod @ Tollu 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

Sri. Ajay Gupta S/O Ram Avad Gupta Vs Sri. Banakar Manjunath S/O Bheemeppa

Sri. Ajay Gupta S/O Ram Avad Gupta Vs Sri. Banakar Manjunath S/O Bheemeppa

The State of Karnataka, Vs Basavaraj Nagappa Bawalatti

Smt Chandrika K P Vs State by Mandya West Police

Mr. Mohammed Harshad Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Naveen M Vs State of Karnataka