Dismissed

Sri Raghu Alias Rohith v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2021CRL.P/5948/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition challenging a bail order under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka rejected the petitioner's claim of innocence and allegations of false implication. Citing serious charges, eyewitness identification, recovery of stolen mobile phones, and the petitioner's antecedents involving 11 similar cases, the court denied bail. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition for bail dismissed; petitioner not entitled to enlarged release on bail.

Sri Raghu Alias Rohith Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5948 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI. RAGHU ALIAS ROHITH, S/O LOKESH K., AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/OF NO.33/57, 20TH CROSS, ITTAMADU BSK 3RD STAGE, HOSAKERAHALLI. BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SMT.VIDYA SELVAMONY, ADVOCATE FOR NAG ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANNAMMANAKERE ACCHUKATTU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 085. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

… RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.147/2018 (SPL.C.NO.26/2019) REGISTERED BY CHANNAMMANAKERE ACHU KATTU POLICE STATION,

¶14

¶15

BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.147/2018 of Channammanakere Achu Kattu Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 397 R/W Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant Sri.Nagaraja.M.B.

¶19

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

¶20

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶21

the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. 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. In fact, he was apprehended in Crime No.181/2018 and thereafter he is produced in the present case under body

¶22

¶23

warrant. It is alleged that three unknown persons have snatched the bag from the informant and tried to snatch gold chain from his wife, in the early hours of the day. In fact, petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter. Investigation is completed and the chargesheet is filed. Under such circumstances, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment and denial of his right to life and liberty. Accused No.3 is already enlarged on bail. Therefore, petitioner is also entitled to enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 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, she prays to allow the petition.

¶24

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the present petitioner for having committed the offences. C.Ws.1 and 2 are the eye witnesses to the incident and test identification parade was conducted. Both the eye witnesses have identified the petitioner. Mobile phone which was snatched from the custody of the informant

¶25

¶26

was recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. Petitioner is having criminal antecedent. He is involved in 11 other similar cases for the offences punishable under Sections 397 or 392 or 395 of IPC. Considering the seriousness of the offences, petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, he prays to dismissal of the petition.

¶27

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

¶28

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for

¶29

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

¶30

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative' for the

¶31

following:

¶32

R E A S O N S

¶33

The materials on record disclose that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. It is stated that three unknown persons came in a motor cycle and snatched the bag of the informant containing mobile phone, cash of Rs.2,500/- and other documents. They also tried to snatch gold chain from

¶34

¶35

the wife of the informant and they fled away from the spot. It is stated that C.Ws.1 and 2 have identified the petitioner and other accused during test identification parade and mobile phones belonging to the informant were recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. Under such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. It is stated that there are as many as 11 similar other cases registered against the present petitioner. Looking into the criminal antecedents, petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶36

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

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is dismissed .

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

pgg

Sri Raghu Alias Rohith v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Raghu Alias Rohith v. 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

Abdul Jabeer @ Jabeer Vs State of Karnataka

Prabhu @ Bhajanthri Vs State of Karnataka

Sathish Vs State of Karnataka

Devaraja Vs State of Karnataka

Saddam Hussen @ Saddam Vs the State of Karnataka

Nayeem Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka by