Allowed

Keshava P G v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2021CRL.P/5285/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. sought bail in a robbery case under Sections 395 and 397 IPC. The High Court held that since investigation was completed and no case for confessions was made out, the petitioner was entitled to bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail on obtaining a bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties subject to standard conditions.

Keshava P G Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5285 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

KESHAVA P.G., S/O GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.81/1, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD, NEAR ANJALI SCHOOL, TENT ROAD, SRINIVASANAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU - 560 091. NATIVE ADDRESS: PRASADANAGAR, TALEKERE VILLAGE, THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 131. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND :

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF RAJAGOPALANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY - 560 058. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI.H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶10

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.216/2021 REGISTERED BY RAJAGOPALNAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 395 AND 397 OF IPC.

¶12

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

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner-accused No.5 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.216/2021 of Rajagopal Nagar Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant Sri.Naveen C.G.

¶15

Heard Sri. Chandrashekara K.A., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.R.Showri, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.5. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been

¶17

¶18

falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 25.06.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 have forcibly entered the house of C.W.1 and accused No.1 assaulted him and robbed cash of Rs.1,70,000/- which was kept in the house. Initially, FIR was filed against three unknown persons. During investigation, the present petitioner was apprehended and it is stated that the petitioner along with accused No.4 was watching outside the house. There is absolutely no other allegations against the present petitioner. The investigation is completed and the chargesheet is filed. Petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent. He is not required for further investigation. His detention in custody would amount to pretrial 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.

¶19

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious

¶20

¶21

allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Even though FIR was registered against three unknown persons, it is specifically stated that it was accused Nos.1 to 3, who entered the house of C.W.1 and robbed the cash and assaulted the informant. During investigation, it is revealed that accused Nos.4 and 5 were watching from outside and they are the partners in crime who shared the booty. Rs.2,000/- was recovered from the custody of the present petitioner. Investigation is completed and the chargesheet is filed. Looking to the seriousness of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

R E A S O N S

¶27

The materials on record disclose that serious

¶28

allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. It is alleged that C.W.1 is the eye witness. His statement was recorded regarding the commission of the offences by the accused. It is stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 have entered the house of C.W.1 and assaulted him and robbed the cash kept in the house. Even though C.W.1 has not referred the name of accused Nos.4 and 5, it is stated that they were having watch and ward outside the house and they were partners in crime, who shared the booty. Cash of Rs.2,000/- was seized from the custody of the present petitioner. Under such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. However, admittedly, the investigation is completed and the chargesheet is filed. Petitioner is not required for further investigation. It is not the contention of prosecution that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent. Trial in the matter would take long period of time and detention of the petitioner in custody would

¶29

¶30

amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty. Therefore, 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.

¶31

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 Crime No.216/2021 of Rajagopal Nagar Police Station, 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:

¶36

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

pgg

Keshava P G v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshava P G 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

Sri. Anand Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohan M @ Mohan Kumar M Vs State of Karnataka

Okoye Ernest Chinedu Vs State of Karnataka

Rahul N.R. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Srikanth Vs State of Karnataka by

Mazhar @ Syed Khadir @ Daku Mazhar Vs State of Karnataka by