Allowed

Mukesh Kumar D v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2021CRL.P/3073/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under IPC 427 and 436. Petitioner in custody for over six months released on personal bond of Rs.1 lakh with conditions including monthly reporting to the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.1 lakh with two sureties subject to conditions of reporting to the I.O. and not tampering with witnesses.

Mukesh Kumar D Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3073 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MUKESH KUMAR D. S/O. DANARAM, AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAJU’S RENTED HOUSE, HAROHALLI TOWN, KANAKAPURA TALUK - 562 117, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI P.R. BHAT, ADV. FOR SMT. RAMADEVI L.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HAROHALLI POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, H.C.G.P.)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.28 OF 2019 OF HAROHALLI P.S., RAMANAGARA, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 427 AND 436 OF THE IPC.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed by accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for granting regular bail in Crime No.28 of 2019 registered by Harohalli Police Station, Ramanagara, for the offences punishable under Sections 427 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

¶20

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶21

On the complaint of Sri Suvalal, the Police registered a case against unknown person. It is alleged that on 6-2-2019 at 1:30 a.m., some miscreants set fire to complainant’s shop and he suffered loss of Rs.25,00,000/. The petitioner was arrested in Crime No.371 of 2020 and during investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner is also involved in the present offence and therefore, the

¶22

¶23

Police secured the presence of the petitioner through body warrant on 5-1-2021 and since then, he is custody.

¶24

Upon considering the arguments and perusal of the record, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to the petitioner in Crime No.371 of 2020 (i.e., in Criminal Petition No.632 of 2021 on 10-2-2021). Now, the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed long back. The petitioner is in custody for more than six months’. Though the alleged offences are non-bailable, but they are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Hence, I pass the following

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Criminal petition is allowed . The Trial Court is

¶27

directed to release the petitioner on bail in Crime No.28 of 2019 registered by Harohalli Police Station, Ramanagara, for the offences punishable under Sections 427 and 436 of the IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶28

¶29

i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

¶30

ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶31

iii) Petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences; and

¶32

iv) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer once in every month, i.e. on every second Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m, till commencement of the trial before the Trial Court.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

kvk

Mukesh Kumar D v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar D 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srinivasa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh D @ Onti Kai Venkatesh Vs the State by Siddapura Police Station

Ramu Vs State by Bengaluru Police Station

Narayanappa @ Narayanaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

P C Purushotham Vs Range Forest Officer

Mohammed Haneef @ Haneef Vs the State of Karnataka