Criminal Bench allowed bail to accused No. 2 charged with conspiracy to murder and forming unlawful assembly. The court held that since investigation was complete and fellow accused on bail, continued detention amounted to pre-trial punishment.
Petitioner enlarged on bail in Crime No.188/2020 on bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4803 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA B.V., S/O LATE VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.81, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, BAPUJI LAYOUT, NEAR K.F.C RESTAURANT, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 040. UTP NO.10039/2020
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIREESHA R.J, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 011, REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. (BY SRI. K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP)
...RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.188/2020 (C.C.NO.6512/2012) OF
2
JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE OF PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 115, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 R/W 120(B) OF IPC AND SECTION 25(1)(B)(b) OF ARMS ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court
seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.188/2020 of Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 r/w 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 25(1) (B) (b) of the Indian Arms Act,1959, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Sri.Sudharshan H.V, Police Inspector.
2. Heard Sri. Gireesha R.J, learned Counsel
for the petitioner and Sri. K.S.Abhijith, learned High
3
Court Government Pleader for respondent -State.
Perused the materials placed on record.
submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He has not committed any offence as alleged. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 27.12.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. The allegations are made against accused No.1, who is stated to be a rowdy sheeter. It is stated that accused No.2 was given supari of Rs.5,00,000/- by accused No.1 and Rs.50,000/- each to accused Nos.3 to 17 for causing the death of Cycle Ravi and Bakery Raghu. Accused Nos.3 to 17 were apprehended by the Police. Admittedly, petitioner/accused No.2 was not at the spot. There are
4
absolutely no allegations against accused No.2. Accused Nos.3 to 17 are already on bail. The petitioner is not required to be detained for any purpose, except, to ensure his presence before the trial Court. Since the investigation is already completed, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner 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.
Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. He is a rowdy sheeter along with accused No.1. He is having criminal antecedents.
5
Cr.No.568/2016 and Cr.No.80/2018 in J.P.Nagar
Police Station, Cr.No.228/2019 in Jayanagar Police Station and Cr.No.197/2020 are being registered against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 307, etc. of I.P.C. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that
would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’
for the following:
6
R E A S O N S
7
petitioner was apprehended on 27.12.2020 i.e., several days after the so called incident took place. Accused Nos.3 to 17 against whom serious allegations are made are already enlarged on bail. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is also 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.
'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.188/2020 of Jayanagar Police Station,
8
Bengaluru 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:
a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.
c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.
Sd/JUDGE
RR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. despite serious charges of conspiracy to murder and forming unlawful assembly?
Whether the petitioner, accused No. 2, can be enlarged on bail considering he was apprehended days after the incident and allegations against him are primarily based on association?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
MANJUNATHA B.V.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
M.G.UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
