Allowed

Mr Pradeepa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Jul 2021CRL.P/1794/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail petition filed for offense under Section 364A IPC involving kidnapping of a minor for ransom. High Court allowed petition granting bail subject to conditions including bond, interrogation permission, and prohibition of tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in event of arrest subject to furnishing bond, appearing within 15 days, prohibiting similar offenses, and not tampering with witnesses.

Mr Pradeepa Vs the State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1794 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

MR PRADEEPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O GOPAL GOWDA R/AT NO.39 NEAR WATER TANK BIRANDAHALLI SAKLESHPURA (RURAL) KARNATAKA-573134

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.P.P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR BELTHANGADY POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-01

¶12

A K SHIVAN AGED 74 YEARS

¶13

¶14

S/O A C KUMARAN SHIVALAYA NEAR ASHWATH KATTE RATHABEEDI, UJIRE VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TQ DAKSHINA KANNADA KARNATAKA

¶15

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING THIS COURT TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.97/2020 REGISTERED BY BELTHANGADI POLICE STATION, D.K. DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 364(A) OF IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in Crime No.97/2020 of Belthangadi Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 364A of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on

¶20

¶21

the basis of the first information lodged by the informant A.K. Shivan.

¶22

Brief facts of the case are that, the informant A.K. Shivan lodged the first information at Belthangadi Police against unknown person stating that on 17.12.2020, while the grand-son Master Anubhav, aged 8 years was playing in front of his house at about 6.30-35 p.m., about 3-4 persons came in a car and kidnapped the minor boy. Subsequently, the wife of the informant received a phone call from 8748050711 & 9407503381, demanding ransom of 100 bit coins, worth about Rs.17 Crores. Therefore, he requested the police to register the case and to investigate into the matter. Accordingly, the police registered the case and took up investigation.

¶23

Heard Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.S. Abhijith, learned High

¶24

¶25

Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶26

It is stated that the petitioner herein was carrying on a bit coin business during the year 20152016 under the name and style of M.M.M. Global, Republic Bitcoin and accused No.1 was the member in the group. Subsequently, accused No.1 was removed from the membership of the said group. Since accused No.1 was having the details of the transaction held by CW.4 in bitcoins, he criminally conspired with other accused to kidnap the minor boy, who is the grand-son of CW-4. Accused Nos.2, 5 & 8 kidnapped the minor boy in a car. Accused Nos.6 and 7 have provided shelter to all the accused and kept the minor boy in the house belonging to accused No.6, thereby all the accused Nos.1 to 8 have committed the offence as stated above. Accordingly, charge sheet was came to be filed.

¶27

¶28

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶29

submitted that the petitioner is not named in the first information report. He is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. The specific contention of the prosecution is that accused Nos.2, 5 and 8 have kidnapped the minor boy. After detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed. The petitioner was implicated only on the basis of so called confessional statement given by other co-accused. The conspiracy on the part of the present petitioner is not proved by producing any material. The petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. He is the permanent resident in the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and he 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 in the interest of justice.

¶30

¶31

Per contra, learned High Court Government

¶32

Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. It is further submitted that all the other accused except the present petitioner were apprehended and subjected to interrogation. Accused Nos.2 to 5 are still in custody. The present petitioner is the main accused, who has conspired with other accused for the commission of the offence. The confessional statement of other accused persons were recorded. The minor boy was released from the custody of accused Nos.2 to 5. The statement of one Yuvaraj B.J under Section 164 of Cr.p.c, who was the former employee under the petitioner has been recorded and he has given details regarding the intention on the part of the petitioner to kidnap the minor boy for ransom. All these material sufficiently prove the involvement of the present petitioner in the

¶33

¶34

commission of the offence. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. The material placed before the Court makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner for having committed thes offence. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may never turn up before the Investigating Officer and he may abscond or may commit similar offences, threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

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

¶36

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶37

¶38

My answer to the above point is in the

¶39

‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶40

R E A S O N S

¶41

Admittedly the investigation is completed.

¶42

The minor boy was released on the next date of the incident. Even though prima facie materials are placed to constitute the offence alleged against the accused, it is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for interrogation. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail subject to conditions which will 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.

¶43

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶44

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The petition is allowed.

¶47

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.97/2020 of Belthangadi Poice Station.

¶48

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶49

a. The petitioner shall furnish 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 Investigating Officer;

¶50

b. The investigation officer is entitled to interrogate the petitioner with the permission of the police.

¶51

¶52

c. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences;

¶53

d. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and

¶54

e. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Mr Pradeepa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Pradeepa 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basavaraju S Hosamani Vs State of Karnataka

Kalpana Vs State of Karnataka

Naveen Kumar S M Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Ali Akbar @ Ali Umar Vs State of Karnataka

Ramanna @ Ramachandraiah Vs State by Excise Police