Allowed

Sri. Mahendra @ Maggi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2021CRL.P/1500/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of accused Nos. 12 and 13, who were charged in a gang rape and extortion case. The Court held that there was no direct evidence against them beyond co-accused statements and directed their release on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail subject to execution of personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties, fines at large, and appearing before I.O. weekly.

Sri. Mahendra @ Maggi Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1500/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. Mahendra @ Maggi S/o. Shivananda Aged about 27 years Residing at No.231, 8^th Main Chandranagar Bengaluru – 560 061

¶9

Sri. Jagadisha S S/o. Siddaraju Aged about 290 years Residing at Yellamma Compound Pipe Line Road Kumaraswamy Layout Bengaluru – 560 061 ..Petitioners

¶10

(By Sri Rajanna C., Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

State of Karnataka By Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station Bengaluru City Represented by its P.P.

¶13

¶14

High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001 ..Respondent

¶15

(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP)

¶16

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in CR.No.12/2021 of Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 364A, 384, 392 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶17

This Criminal petition coming on for orders , this day, the Court made the following:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed by petitioners-accused Nos.12

¶20

and 13 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in Crime No.12/2021, registered by the Kumaraswamy Layout Police, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 364A, 384, 392 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Preetham G filed before the police alleging that on 11.01.2021 at 7.00 p.m., when he was

¶22

¶23

searching a massage parlour through his mobile phone, at that time, he came in contact with phone no. 9741607172 and they asked to come near Jayanagar pump house, accordingly, he went near the pump house, where some of the accused persons came and met him and thereafter, both of them sat in the car. The said person came with one girl and received Rs.15,000/- through Google Pay. Thereafter, the said person along with the complainant went to the complainant’s house; the said person got down outside of the house; the complainant went inside the house along with the accused. Later, it is alleged that some photographs were taken by the accused and made a blackmail to the complainant for demanding Rs.4.00 lakhs and threatened to do away with his life, then the complainant was taken to ATM and snatched Rs.50,000/- and also gold ring and neck chain and illegally detained the complainant. Later, he was taken

¶24

¶25

to hotel, there he was detained and demanded Rs.4.00 lakhs for not showing the photographs to the family members of the complainant. Then the complainant telephoned to his friend Naveen, from Mysuru he came and paid Rs.1.00 lakh and thereafter, the accused were set the complainant free.

¶26

During the investigation, the police have arrested almost accused Nos.1 to 10 and these petitioners. Accused No.11, the said girl is said to have been absconding and they are produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody. Petitioners/accused Nos.12 and 13 approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, they are before this Court.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no overtacts attributed against the accused/petitioners No.12 and 13. None of the

¶28

¶29

witnesses have come and stated anything about presence of the petitioners. Petitioners/accused Nos.12 and 13 have been falsely implicated in the case only on the say of the co-accused that they also accompanied with the other accused persons. Absolutely, there is no material against these petitioners. These petitioners are in custody from 23.01.2021. They are ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. Hence, prayed for grant of bail.

¶30

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the bail petition and contended that these accused persons worked along with the other accused as shadow accused persons and they all belong to one gang. The Police arrested accused No.1 and other accused persons. They recovered the cash snatched from the complainant. The investigation is still under progress. If the accused

¶31

¶32

persons are granted bail, they may likely to commit similar offence and absconding from the case is not ruled out. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.

¶33

Upon considering the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly, the entire allegations go against the main accused No.1, he was first initially contacted the complainant and met at Jayanagar pump house and later, he has got introduced accused No.11 – girl and both of them went in a car. Thereafter, received the money; snatched on black mail, demanded and robbed the money, gold chain of the complainant. Later, all the other accused persons also joined together with accused No.1 and detained the complainant in the hotel, demanded ransom. The said Naveen, friend of the complainant came to Bengaluru and paid Rs.1.00 lakh, by that time, the complaint was lodged.

¶34

¶35

Absolutely there is no direct evidence

¶36

against these two petitioners except the allegation that they also belong to same gang and worked along with accused as shadow accused. By looking into material, absolutely, there is no material placed on record to connect the accused in the crime except the names were revealed by the co-accused persons. Therefore, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view, these petitioners/accused Nos.12 and 13 are entitled to be released on bail. Hence, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The criminal petition is allowed .

¶39

The Judicial Magistrate is directed to release petitioners-accused Nos.12 and 13, on bail in Crime No.12/2021, registered by the Kumaraswamy Layout Police, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable

¶40

¶41

under Sections 342, 364A, 384, 392 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-

¶42

i) Each of the petitioners 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 Judicial Magistrate.

¶43

ii) They shall not indulge in similar type of offences.

¶44

iii) They shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶45

iv) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in a week on every Monday between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. for a period of three months or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is later.

¶46

SD/-

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

SJK

Sri. Mahendra @ Maggi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mahendra @ Maggi 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 Denakaran M Vs State of Karnataka

Chandrashekar. v Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Murugeshan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Farooque Ahmed Khan Vs Senior Intelligence Officer

Sri Sanjay @ Sanju Vs State of Karnataka

Girish Vs the State of Karnataka