Allowed

Gajendra Alies Gaja v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2021CRL.P/2335/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka granted bail to accused No.6 in a robbery case. The court held that despite prima facie involvement, detention constituted pre-trial punishment and infringement of fundamental rights as the trial would be lengthy.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties subject to conditions of not committing offences, not tampering with witnesses, and appearing before the Court.

Gajendra Alies Gaja Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2335/2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

Gajendra Alies Gaja S/o late Shivanna Aged about 32 years Residing at No.6 Bheemasandra Kasaba Hobli Tumkuru Taluk Tumkuru District Pin- 572 101

¶8

…Petitioner (By Sri Brijesh Rajput, Advocate)

¶9

AND :

¶10

State of Karnataka By Dobbespet Police Station Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru - 560 001

¶11

… Respondent

¶12

(By Sri.K.S.Abhijith, HCGP)

¶13

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.16/2021 of Dobbespet P.S., Bengaluru District for the offence P/U/S 395 of IPC.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner-accused No.6 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.16/2021 of Dobbespet Police Station, Bengaluru District registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant K.P.Manikantan.

¶18

Heard Sri Brijesh Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.6. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. However, he was apprehended on 04.02.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is alleged that four persons came in a Honda City Car following the petitioner who was proceeding in his car with cash of Rs.5,00,000/-. Three persons have got down

¶20

¶21

from the Honda City, snatched the car key from the informant, assaulted him, snatched his gold chain and in the meantime two other persons came on a motor cycle and all the miscreants together robbed the cash which was kept in the car. The further statement of the informant was again recorded on 24.03.2021, wherein, he specifically refers to the overt act committed by accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5. But no overt act is alleged against the present petitioner. The informant only states that the petitioner was present along with other miscreants. The petitioner was asked to accompany the other petitioners and accordingly he accompanied them without knowing the purpose for which they were proceeding. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. Under such circumstances, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. He 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.

¶22

¶23

Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. The petitioner along with other accused waylaid the car in which the informant was proceeding, assaulted him, snatched the gold chain and cash. Rs.5,000/- was recovered at his instance whereas the gold chain and the cash was also recovered from accused No.3. Similarly, cash was recovered from other accused as well. The petitioner is identified by the informant during test identification parade. Investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed making specific allegations. Looking to the seriousness of offence and also the prima facie materials to connect the petitioner to the offence in question, he is not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

R E A S O N S

¶29

The materials on record discloses that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The informant has specifically stated regarding six persons committing the offence as stated above. His further statement is also said to have been recorded, wherein, he refers to the name of the present petitioner as one of the miscreant who took part in committing the crime. It is stated that cash of Rs.5,000/- was recovered from the custody of the present petitioner and the informant identified the petitioner during test identification parade. From all these materials, prima facie it could be stated that the petitioner was also involved in commission of the offence. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter cannot be

¶30

¶31

accepted, at this stage. His submission that the petitioner only accompanied the other miscreants without knowing the purpose for which they were proceeding also cannot be accepted at this stage. However, admittedly, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. The trial in the case would take sufficiently long time. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to 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.

¶32

Accordingly, I answer the above point in

¶33

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed.

¶36

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime 16/2021 of Dobbespet Police Station, on obtaining the bond in

¶37

¶38

a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional

¶39

Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶40

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶41

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶42

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶43

HB/-

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

Gajendra Alies Gaja v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra Alies Gaja 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

M Harsha Vs the State of Karnataka by

Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka by

Samiulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Shakthi Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mogli @ Irfan Pasha Vs the State

Mr Syed Dada Peer Vs the State of Karnataka