Allowed

Sri. Nagaraju v. State by Kunigal Police

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2021CRL.P/2568/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Bench allowed anticipatory bail petition filed by accused against arrest in crime registered for IPC offences. Court granted bail subject to furnishing bond, appearance before IO, and not tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in event of arrest to appear before IO within 15 days; bond Rs.2L with two sureties; conditions not to commit offences or tamper witnesses.

Sri. Nagaraju Vs State by Kunigal Police — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2568 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI.NAGARAJU, @NAGESH, S/O HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT GIDADAPALYA VILLAGE, KOTHAREGE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.K.KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND :

¶9

STATE BY KUNIGAL POLICE, REP. BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶10

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.296/2020 REGISTERED BY KUNIGAL POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 384, 447, 341, 504, 506(B) R/W 149 OF IPC.

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.296/2020 of Kunigal Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 384, 447, 341, 504, 506(B) R/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Sri.Keshava.

¶15

Heard Sri.K.Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Abhijith, learned HCGP for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not arrayed as accused while registering the F.I.R. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Initially F.I.R. was registered against only one accused i.e., accused No.1. During investigation, accused Nos.1 to 4 were apprehended. It is stated that accused No.4 has given his voluntary statement before Investigation Officer, wherein, he referred the name of the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the

¶17

3 -

¶18

petitioner produced certified copy of the remand report pertaining to accused No.4 and submits that in view of mentioning the name of the present petitioner in the remand report, there is reasonable apprehension of being arrested. The petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged. Accused No.4 has falsely implicated the present petitioner without any basis. Under such circumstances petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the permanent resident of 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.

¶19

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. He submits that even though the name of the petitioner is not found in the F.I.R. his name is referred by co-accused i.e., accused No.4. Under such circumstances, petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail,

¶20

¶21

he may never turn up before the Investigating Officer or may commit similar offences, threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition

¶22

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned

¶23

counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶24

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for

¶25

grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶26

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

¶27

R E A S O N S

¶28

The materials placed on record prima facie disclose that, initially F.I.R. was registered against accused Nos. 1 to 4 and others. It is stated that there were five persons who committed the offences. Admittedly, accused Nos.1 to 4 were apprehended and it is stated that accused No.4 is already enlarged on bail by Trial Court subject to conditions. It is stated that the offence was committed from 01.07.2020 to 31.10.2020, F.I.R. came to be registered on 08.12.2020. Investigation is in progress, the main accused

¶29

¶30

are already apprehended by the Investigating Officer. Under such circumstances, I do find considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner regarding apprehension of the petitioner and I do not find any reason to reject the petition. Accused No.4, who referred the name of the present petitioner is already enlarged on bail. Even if anticipatory bail is granted petitioner can be subject to investigation. Hence, petitioner may be granted anticipatory 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.

¶31

7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶32

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition is allowed.

¶35

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.296/2020 of Kunigal Police Station.

¶36

¶37

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of

¶38

this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶39

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;

¶40

b. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences;

¶41

c. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the Court as and when required; and

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

gpg

Sri. Nagaraju v. State by Kunigal Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nagaraju v. State by Kunigal Police

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 Venkatesh G Vs State of Karnataka

Arvind K.T. @ Babu Vs State of Karnataka by

Mohammed Moin Vs State of Karnataka

Praveen Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Aftab Vs State of Karnataka by

S. Praveena Vs the State of Karnataka by