Allowed

Prakash v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2021CRL.P/8069/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka criminal entertained a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The Bench allowed bail imposing personal bond, a surety, and conditions to prevent tampering with witnesses or leaving jurisdiction, noting the dropped murder charge.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was allowed; trial Court directed to release petitioner on bail subject to personal bond with surety and specific conditions.

Prakash Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8069/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PRAKASH S/O. GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.272/1, 17^TH MAIN ROAD J CROSS NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE KARNATAKA - 56086

¶8

AND ALSO AT: PILLAPPA HOUSE MEDARAHALLI CHIKKABANAVARA POST BANGALORE CITY …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.SHARASS CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SOLADEVANAHALLI P.S. (REP. BY SPP) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KGID BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

¶13

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.138/2020 OF SOLADEVANAHALLI P.S., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 AND 420 OF IPC.

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting bail in Crime No.138/2020 registered by Soladevanahalli, Bangalore District for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that one Lakshminarayana, who is brother of the deceased Krishnappa has filed private complaint before the Chief

¶20

¶21

Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru alleging that his father having six children i.e. five sons and one daughter. Out of which, the third son Krishnappa, the deceased said to be with accused Nos.1 and 2 who are the nephew of his elder brother and second brother namely Venkataramu and Gangaiah. On 16.02.2019, the said Krishnappa came to be died and on suspecting his death, the complainant has filed a private complaint before the court and got referred to the Police. Accordingly, the police registered a case and investigated the matter. It was revealed that the death was occurred due to heart attack. There is no offence of murder however the police found that the petitioner said to have withdrawn the money of the deceased from ATM card. Thereby, he has misappropriated the money and cheated others. After registering the case, the police arrested the petitioner on 18.09.2021 and he has been remanded to judicial custody. He has approached the Sessions Judge

¶22

¶23

for grant of bail which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶24

Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP and on perusal of the records, it reveals that the police have already been completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet by deleting the offence under Section 302 of IPC and by adding Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. Charge sheet is for scrutiny. In the objection statement filed by the Public Prosecutor before the Sessions Judge, the police stated that while dropping the charges under Section 302 of IPC, the petitioner was arrested for the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC. The only allegation against the petitioner is that inspite of the death of the deceasedKrishnappa, the petitioner who is said to be the nephew of the complainant, withdrew the money of the deceased-Krishnappa, even after his death through

¶25

¶26

ATM Card, which are the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC which are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is in custody for more than 2 months. The police filed the charge sheet for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC after dropping the offence under section 302 of IPC. By looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and by imposing certain conditions, if the petitioner/accused is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The criminal petition is allowed .

¶29

The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner/accused on bail in Crime No.138/2020 registered by Soladevanahalli, Bangalore District for

¶30

¶31

the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:-

¶32

i) Petitioner shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with a surety for likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶33

ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶34

iii) Petitioner shall not indulge himself in similar offences strictly;

¶35

iv) Petitioner shall take the trial without causing any delay; and

¶36

v) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

KTY

Prakash v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash 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

M Channanjappa Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri B Lohith Vs the State of Karnataka

Dilip Kumar U Vs the State of Karnataka

State by Vs Syed Niyaz

Syed Abuali Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Abuali Vs State of Karnataka