This order grants anticipatory bail to two petitioners. They are rowdy sheeters who absconded after case registration. The Court denies bail due to their antecedents and criminal conduct.
The petitions for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6206/2021 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6211/2021
IN CRL.P.No.6206/2021
BETWEEN :
Rahul N.R., S/o Ramesh N., Aged about 29 years, R/at No.J 52, 2nd Main, 3rd Cross, Gayathrinagar, Bangalore - 560 021.
… Petitioner
(By Sri. Mohamed Khan A., Advocate)
AND :
State of Karnataka, By Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru District - 01. (Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex).
… Respondent (By Sri. K.S.Abhijith, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.114/2021 registered by Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence P/U/S 363, 364A, 342, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC.
IN CRL.P.No.6211/2021
BETWEEN :
Satisha G., S/o Gopalappa, Aged about 29 years, #367, 1st Floor, Krishna Reddy Building, Indlabele Road, Behind Sharadha School, Attibele, Bangalore - 562 107.
… Petitioner (By Sri. Mohamed Khan A., Advocate)
AND :
State of Karnataka, By Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru District. (Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex), Bengaluru - 1. (By Sri. K.S.Abhijith, HCGP)
… Respondent
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.114/2021 registered by Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence P/U/S 363, 364A, 342, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.8 in Crl.P.No.6206/2021 and
the petitioner-accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.6211/2021 are before
this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.114/2021 of Peenya Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A, 342, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant - Barath.
the matter and the charge sheet also came to be filed. It is alleged that the informant had obtained loan of Rs.2,00,000/from accused No.6 and another, but the same was not returned. They conspired with the other accused and forced the informant to sign on several blank documents etc. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The same has not been explained. The investigation is undertaken and the charge sheet is already filed. All other accused except these petitioners are either enlarged on bail or granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the present petitioners are also entitled for grant of anticipatory bail on the principles of parity. They are not required for custodial interrogation. The petitioners are
the permanent resident of the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the petitions and they are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petitions in the interest of justice.
committed the offences. Even though there is delay in lodging the complaint, the same has been explained by the informant. Many of the other accused were granted regular bail after subjecting them for interrogation. These petitioners are rowdy sheeters and several criminal complaints have been registered against them in Peenya and Rajgopal Nagar Police Station. Inspite of registration of criminal complaint, they are absconding since the date of registration of the case. Looking to the seriousness of the offence and also conduct of the petitioners and in light of their criminal antecedents, they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petitions.
“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant
of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative for the following:
R E A S O N S
allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. The informant had filed the detailed complaint making specific allegation, even though there is a delay. Admittedly, these petitioners are absconding since the date of registration of the case. Other accused were enlarged on bail after subjecting them for interrogation. It is stated that some of the accused were also granted anticipatory bail. But in the present case, both the petitioners are stated to be the rowdy sheeters and several criminal cases were registered in Peenya and Rajagopal Nagar Police Station. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of parity with the other accused.
Accordingly, I answer the above point in negative. The
petitions are dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
ssb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in the instant proceedings?
Whether the grant of bail should be refused due to the petitioners' conduct, absconding, and criminal antecedents?
7 provisions across 2 enactments
Rahul N.R.
Satisha G.
State of Karnataka
M.G. UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
