Allowed

Sri Praveen v. (A9) v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2021CRL.P/1251/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for regular bail regarding offences of rioting and property damage, the High Court allowed the petition despite the heinous nature of the crime and recovery of items from the petitioner, directing release subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner-accused No.9 is directed to be released on bail subject to execution of personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties and compliance with specified conditions.

Sri Praveen v (A9) Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1251 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Sri. Praveen V (A9) S/o Late Venkatesh Aged about 22 years R/o Kaiwara Village Chintamani Taluk Chikkaballapur Taluk Chikkaballapur District - 563128.

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri. M R Nanjunda Gowda, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka By Vemagal Police Kolar Taluk Represented by State Public Prosecutor Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶12

...Respondent

¶13

(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP)

¶14

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release the petitioner on regular bail in Crime No.281/2020 of Vemagal Police Station which is now pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), JMFC

¶15

¶16

Court, Kolar for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 395, 427, 435, 448, 504, 506 r/w 149 IPC. This Criminal petition coming on for Orders , this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.9 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in Crime No.281/2020 registered by the Vemgal Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 395, 448, 435, 427, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that on 12.12.2020 at about 6.00 a.m. the workers of Wistron Infocomm company situated at Narasapura Industrial area, Kolar Taluk, colluded with some of the contract labourers and outside goonda elements, formed into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the company premises by shouting slogans against the management and ransacked the office equipment at HR block and other parts of the company. All the accused persons entered the chambers of HR block,

¶20

¶21

where lockers were kept and damaged the same with iron rods and also damaged the documents of the company. The accused persons also assaulted the security guards and abused them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences. They also damaged the windows, doors, furniture, cars, golf carts, gypsum walls, desk phones, computers, printers and also damaged the personal mobile phones of the workers, lap-tops etc. It is also alleged that the accused persons have damaged the entire company and have caused loss to the company to tune of Rs.437.70 crores. On the complaint lodged by one Prashanth, the company executive, the police after registering the case, arrested the petitioner and others and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner had also approached before the Sessions Judge for bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, petitioner-accused No.9 is before this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case was registered against 7000 unknown persons and that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and

¶23

¶24

he has been falsely implicated in the case by the police. He is in judicial custody from 12.12.2020 and he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for grant of bail.

¶25

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected for grant of bail and contended that the petitioner has committed heinous offence and there is recovery of three Dell Lap-tops and four I-phones from his possession. There is prima-facie case against the petitioner for having committed the alleged offence. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.

¶26

Considering the arguments and on perusal of the record, it goes to show that the case was registered against 7000 unknown persons who are all employees and contract employees. Except the seizure of laptops and cell phones, there is no allegation against this petitioner. 7000 persons said to have committed the alleged offence. The investigation is already completed and charge sheet is filed. The co-accused who were involved in same crime have been

¶27

¶28

granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, if the petitioner is granted bail by imposing certain conditions, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The criminal petition is allowed.

¶31

The jurisdictional Magistrate/trial Court is directed to release the petitioner-accused No.9, on bail in Crime No.281/2020 registered by Vemgal Police Station, subject to the following conditions:-

¶32

i) Petitioner shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶33

ii) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;

¶34

¶35

iii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

¶36

iv) Petitioner should not delay the process of trial;

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

DKB/-

Sri Praveen v. (A9) v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Praveen v. (A9) 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

Lakshmikanth Vs State of Karnataka

Shin Thangajal Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.Chethan D.M. Vs Basavangudi Womens Police Station

Faizal Ahamed Vs the State of Karnataka

B. Bharatha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Nanjundaswamy @ Hosahalli Nanjundi Vs State of Karnataka