Allowed

Sri Manikanta @ Mani v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Oct 2021CRL.P/7007/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Court enlarged petitioner accused on bail in kidnapping and extortion case involving serious allegations. Court rejected prosecution opposition on grounds of parity with other released accused and completed investigation, fixing bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties subject to conditions not to commit offences, tamper with witnesses, and to appear.

Sri Manikanta @ Mani Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7007 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. MANIKANTA @ MANI, S/O LATE RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, 13TH CROSS, OPP. VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SRINIVAS N., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND :

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVESHWARA NAGARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 079, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶10

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.167/2021 OF BASAVESHWARA NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 364-A, 385, 323, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶11

¶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

¶15

grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.167/2021 of Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station, pending on the file of the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 385, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, on the basis of first information lodged by the informant Sri. Manchaiah B.

¶16

Heard Sri. Srinivas N., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner is arrayed as accused No.5. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 16.08.2021 and since then he is in

¶18

¶19

judicial custody. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. It is alleged that more than 10 persons are involved in commission of the offence. Accused No.1 is the main accused, against whom serious allegations are made. The only allegation against the present petitioner is that he criminally intimidated the informant by referring to the incident that had taken place on the previous day. It is said that in the mean time, the petitioners came to the spot and accused No.4 snatched the car key of the informant and thereafter the informant was kidnapped and taken to Laggere Ring Road. The accused have came there in four different motorcycles and abused the informant and assaulted with hands. The allegation against accused No.1 is of serious nature as he had blackmailed the informant showing nude photos and threatened to send the same to others including the wife of the informant. The petitioner is not required for further investigation. Even according to the contention of prosecution, the informant was not assaulted by the petitioner with any weapon. Even though the investigation is still in progress, detention of the petitioner in custody is not required for any other purpose, except, to ensure his presence before

¶20

¶21

the trial Court. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. Accused Nos.3, 4 and 8 are already enlarged on bail by this Court. On parity, the present petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. 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.

¶22

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The petitioner had actively involved in the commission of offence as he joined the hands with other accused and assaulted the informant with hands. All the accused including accused No.1 started blackmailing the informant by showing nude photos with girls and threatening to forward the same to the wife of the informant. There was also a demand for `10,00,000/-. Accused Nos.6 and 8 are still absconding and the investigation is still at the initial stage. Considering the seriousness of the offences and looking

¶23

5 -

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

R E A S O N S

¶29

The materials on record disclose that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Even though the learned counsel contended that there are no serious allegations against the present petitioner, the same cannot be accepted in view of the specific overt-act alleged against the petitioner by the informant in the first information itself. However, it is not the contention of prosecution that the petitioner is required for

¶30

¶31

further investigation or that he is having criminal antecedents. Even though the co-accused are still absconding, the same cannot be accepted to detain the petitioner in custody. However, learned HCGP has not disputed the fact that that accused Nos.3, 4 and 8 against whom similar allegations are made are already enlarged on bail. Under such circumstances, the present petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of parity with the said accused. Admittedly, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pretrial 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.

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition is allowed.

¶35

¶36

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.167/2021 of Basaveshwara 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:

¶37

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions

¶41

as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶42

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

¶43

report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial

¶44

¶45

Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

pgg

Sri Manikanta @ Mani v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manikanta @ Mani 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

Manish Singh Vs State by

Sri Manjunath Vs State by Birur Police

Smt . Indu Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha @ Elaniru Manja Vs State of Karnataka

Narasimhappa @ Narasimhamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

Musheer Khan @ Musheer Vs State of Karnataka