Allowed

Madhusudhan v. State by Kodigenahalli P S

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2021CRL.P/3443/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in cases involving offences under IPC and Explosive Substances Act. Court held petitioner entitled to bail after investigation completion as continued detention would be pre-trial punishment, subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.110/2020 upon bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions.

Madhusudhan Vs State by Kodigenahalli P S — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3443 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Madhusudhan, S/o Sidappa, Aged about 22 years, Residing at, Jetti Agrahara Village, C.N.Durga Hobli, Kortagere Taluk, Tumakuru District - 572129.

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri.Ravi KumaraB.R, Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

State by Kodigenahalli PS, Represented by, State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building - 560001.

¶13

… Respondent

¶14

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

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.110/2020 of Kodigenahalli P.S., Tumakuru for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 109, 307, 436, 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 6 of Explosive Substances Act.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.110/2020 of Kodigenahalli Police Station, Tumakuru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 109, 307, 436 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Remanth E.H.

¶20

Heard Sri.Ravijumar.B.R, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3. He is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 28.09.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation has been completed and charge sheet is also filed. The matter is pending in S.C.No.5004/2020 before the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru sitting at

¶22

¶23

Madhugiri. Initially, FIR came to be registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 and three unknown persons. It is stated that accused No.2 threw the beer bottle set on fine towards the informant and injured, with an intention to cause their death. However, there is no overtacts alleged against the present petitioner. He is not having any criminal antecedents. Since investigation is already completed, 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.

¶24

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. It is submitted that statement of injured and eye witness were recorded by the Investigating Officer who have named the present petitioner along with accused Nos.1 and 2. The two wheeler used in commission of the offence is seized by the Police at the instance of the present petitioner. The petitioner was very much accompanied accused No.2 and ridden the motorcycle in

¶25

¶26

question and participated in commission of offence. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶27

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned

¶28

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

¶29

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for

¶30

grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶31

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

¶32

following:

¶33

R E A S O N S

¶34

The materials on record disclose that serious

¶35

allegations are made against the present petitioner for having committed the offence. The statement of the injured and the eye witness were recorded wherein they have specifically stated regarding the overtacts of each of the accused. It is stated that accused Nos.2 to 4 have committed the offence in question at the instance of accused No.1. The Wound Certificate relating to the injury disclose that he sustained grievous injuries. Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the

¶36

¶37

petitioner that petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter cannot be accepted. However, the injured is already discharged from the hospital. Investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. 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.

¶38

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

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition is allowed.

¶41

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.110/2020 of Kodigenahalli Police Station, Tumakuru, on obtaining 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 jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶42

¶43

a) The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶47

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Madhusudhan v. State by Kodigenahalli P S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhusudhan v. State by Kodigenahalli P S

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

Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Shrinivasa S.N @ Sheena

Joy B Vs the State by

Rahul Kumar @ Chote Lal @ Lal Vs State of Karnataka

Sahil Mohammed Vs the State by

Sri. Mehboob Khan Vs State by Holenarsipura Town Police Station