Allowed

Dhananjaya @ Renuka Prasad v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2021CRL.P/2323/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka granted bail to an accused charged with robbery, aggravated assault, and attempted murder. The Court relied on parity with co-accused already released and ordered the committal court to release the petitioner subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail to execute personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, guaranteeing no tampering and prompt trial appearance.

Dhananjaya @ Renuka Prasad Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2323/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Dhananjaya @ Renuka Prasad @ Nari @ Kudure, S/o. Rangaswamy, Aged about 30 years, R/at No.277/A, 2^nd Main Road, 2^nd Cross, Kanteeravanagara, Nandini Layout, Bengaluru – 560 096

¶9

..Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri. A.N.Radhakrishna, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

State of Karnataka, By Tavarekere Police, Ramanagara District, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Bengaluru – 560 001. ..Respondent

¶13

(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

¶14

This Criminal Petition is under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶15

by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon’ble

¶16

¶17

Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.229/2019 of Tavarekere Police Station, Ramanagara for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 395, 397, 307, 201, 427 of IPC and Section 27 of Indian Arms Act.

¶18

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders , this day, the Court made the following:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting bail in Crime No.229/2019 registered by Tavarekere police now pending in C.C.No.1394/2019, on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Magadi for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 395, 397, 307, 201, 427 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act .

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP.

¶22

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that

¶24

complainant is one Suresh who lodged a complaint before the Tavarekere police on 29.08.2019 that he was working as a cashier in Shekhar Wines and on 29.08.2019 at about 9.30 p.m., this petitioner and others went to Shekhar Wines and ordered for food, for the delay in service they quarreled with the complainant and they assaulted the complainant with sword and robbed Rs.65,000/- cash from the cash box and also destroyed some of the properties including the CCTV camera in order to destroy the evidence and fled away in a car. At that time public chased along with this complainant where the accused/petitioner car said to be apprehended and they ran away.

¶25

After registration of the case, the respondent police arrested the petitioner on 10.10.2019 along with accused persons and remanded to Judicial custody. The petitioner approached the

¶26

¶27

Sessions Court for grant of bail which came to be rejected. Hence, petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Co-accused have already been granted bail. Petitioner is in judicial custody since his arrest and his presence is not required any further, except for trial. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶29

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader objected the bail petition. If he is granted bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and he may delay the process of trial. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

¶31

Upon hearing the arguments and on

¶32

considering the material on record, admittedly, accused Nos. 2, 3, and 5 were already granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet has been filed. The allegation against the petitioner that he has assaulted the complainant with a long/sword. On looking into the material produced on record even the charge sheet material, the weapon used against the CW-1 i.e., the complainant is long/sword and there is no recovery from the petitioner. However, the co-accused who were having similar allegations as of the petitioner were granted bail by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner is in custody from 10.10.2019. It appears that the accused persons had come for fun and consumed alcohol and they quarreled for the reason that the food was delayed by hotel person and thereafter it turned into quarrel and the accused is said

¶33

¶34

to have snatched the cash by assaulting the

¶35

complainant.

¶36

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence alleged against the petitioner is triable by the Sessions Judge and since the investigation is already completed, the presence of the petitioner may not be required by the prosecution for any purpose and there are no bad antecedents against the petitioner. The allegation against this petitioner is similar to that of the allegation made against other accused. Having similar allegations, the co-accused were already granted bail, on the ground of parity this petitioner also entitle for bail. The apprehension of the prosecution can be safeguarded by imposing certain conditions and if the petitioner is granted bail, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent. Therefore, this petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Hence, I pass the following:

¶37

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶40

The Committal Court/trial Court is directed to release petitioner/accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.229/2019 registered by Tavarekere police for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 395, 397, 307, 201, 427 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶41

i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal Court;

¶42

ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences;

¶43

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

¶44

¶45

iv) Petitioner shall take up the Trial without causing any delay.

¶46

SD/JUDGE

¶47

mbb

Dhananjaya @ Renuka Prasad v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjaya @ Renuka Prasad 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

Chittaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Vijay Nandhan. B @ Pavan @ Vijay @ Anbu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mallikarjun Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha B K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Subbegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vasantha @ Vasanth Kumar M Vs the State of Karnataka