Dismissed

K Madhu @ Mada v. State of Karnataka by S.H.O.

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2021CRL.P/1700/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dealt with a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by an accused prosecuted for theft and offences under the Karnataka Excise Act. The Court dismissed the petition due to the petitioner's criminal antecedents and the serious nature of the charges.

What did the court decide?

The petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

K Madhu @ Mada Vs State of Karnataka by S.H.O. — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1700 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

K.MADHU @ MADA S/O KUPPASWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT MULAVI VILLAGE AND POST YARCAUD TALUK SALEM DISTRICT TAMIL NADU-636 602.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI:G.PANDURANGA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY S.H.O. BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY-560 020.

¶13

REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED SPP HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

… RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP))

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.56/2020 (C.C.NO.1183/2021) OF HIGH GROUNDS P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 379, 511 OF IPC AND SECTION 86, 87 OF K.F ACT.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.56/2020 of High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable under Section 379, 511 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Excise Act (for short ‘KF Act’), on the basis of first information lodged by the informantAshoka C N.

¶20

Heard Sri.G.Panduranga., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Abhijith., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any

¶22

¶23

basis. He was apprehended on 16-11-2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. He was initially apprehended in crime No.76/2020 of Sadashivanagar Police Station. Even though he was enlarged on bail in the said case, his presence was secured under a body warrant. The petitioner had not committed any offences as alleged. He is not having any criminal antecedents. However, he has been falsely implicated in other cases also. Hence, the detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. 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 to allow the petition.

¶24

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Initially, he was apprehended in crime No.76/2020 of Sadashivanagar police station and

¶25

¶26

produced in the present case under body warrant. As per the case of prosecution, the petitioner along with other accused had cut and removed the sandalwood tree that was standing in the precincts of 7 Minister quarters. The security guard was alerted and the petitioner along with other accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. The petitioner is having criminal antecedents. Six more cases of similar nature are registered against him viz., in Crime Nos.93/2017 of JC Nagara Police station, 117/2018 of High Grounds Police station, 126/2018 of Cubbon Park Police Station, 157/2018 of High Grounds Police station, 89/2019 and 76/2020 of Sadashivanagar Police station and the present case is crime No.56/2020 of High Grounds Police station. All these cases pertains to commission of similar offence under the Forest Act and also under the provisions of IPC. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is a possibility of he committing similar offence or he may abscond, as he is the permanent resident of Tamilnadu State. Looking to the conduct and seriousness of the

¶27

¶28

offence, petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

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

¶30

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶31

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

¶32

R E A S O N S

¶33

The materials on record disclose that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. It is stated that petitioner and the co-accused tried to cut and remove the sandalwood tree that was standing in the precincts of 7 Ministers quarters and when the security was alerted, the petitioner along with other accused ran away from the scene of occurrence leaving the rod and the saw at the spot. It is stated that

¶34

¶35

petitioner is involved in 6 other similar cases, as mentioned above. Even though, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter, same cannot be accepted at this stage. Looking to the seriousness of the offence and conduct of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that he is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶36

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and the petition is dismissed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

K Madhu @ Mada v. State of Karnataka by S.H.O.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Madhu @ Mada v. State of Karnataka by S.H.O.

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

Veerendra. P. S. Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri. Mahadevappa @ Manthri Vs State of Karnataka

Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Bharamappa K Vs State of Karnataka

John Nonso Egwu Vs State of Karnataka

Azubike Udealor Francis Vs State of Karnataka