Three criminal petitions were filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail for government employees accused of a dacoity. The High Court rejected bail pending investigation.
Bail petitions rejected pending completion of investigation.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10128/2021 C/W. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102/2022 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.128/2022
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10128/2021:
BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJ S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS DAR POLICE QUARTERS GULPET, KOLAR-563 130.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI L.SUDHARSHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARANTAKA BY GULPET P.S. KOLAR KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT
(BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.144/2021 OF GULPET POLICE STATION, KOLAR DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 395, 506 OF IPC AND SECTION 25 OF THE INDIAN ARMS ACT.
2
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI VENUGOPALAIAH S/O KESHAVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/At PANAMAKANAHALLI VILLAGE TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR-563 101. … PETITIONER
(BY SRI ABHILASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.R.NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARANTAKA BY GULPET POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT
(BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K.K, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.144/2021 OF GULPET POLICE STATION, KOLAR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 341, 395, 506 OF IPC AND SECTION 25 OF THE INDIAN ARMS ACT.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.128/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI UDAYA KUMAR S/O CHIKKA MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT BELAGANAHALLI VILLAGE HUTHUR HOBLI, KOLAR-563 101. … PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA K, ADVOCATE)
3
AND:
THE STATE OF KARANTAKA BY GULPET POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT
(BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K.K, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.144/2021 OF GULPET POLICE STATION, KOLAR DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 395, 506 OF IPC AND SECTION 25 OF THE INDIAN ARMS ACT.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS ‘THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
These petitions are filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail of the petitioners/accused No.2, accused No.1 and accused No.6, respectively in Crime No.144/2021 of Gulpet Police Station, Kolar District, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 395, 506 of IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act.
4
petitioner in all the three petitions and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.
5
6
as Gunman and recovery of uniform was made since he is the employee of Police Department, the same is not an incriminating material, however, alleged recovery of Rs.1,700/- was made and 10 live bullets were seized and also a gun was seized. The learned counsel also would submit that the Redmi phone was also seized and the details are given. But, the same is not pertaining to Redmi company mobile, no such keypad mobile manufactured by Redmi Company. Hence, the very case of the prosecution is doubtful.
7
when the complainant was returning, stopped his vehicle and 5 to 6 persons alighted from the Car and they were all in the uniform and subjected him for assault mercilessly and one of them showed pistol and snatched an amount of Rs.1,700/- and also keypad and caused the life threat.
submits that though no recovery at the instance of accused No.6
8
and test identification parade is yet to be conducted and the same is in progress. Accused No.6 is also the driver of the KSRTC., bus and whether he discharged his duty as driver on the date of the incident also to be collected from the concerned Department. Hence, his presence is required.
9
Crl.P.No.10174/2021 that there was no any recovery and all these petitioners are the Government Employees and also accused No.6 is also an employee of the Corporation and working as a driver, whether he had worked on that date on the date of the incident, in this regard, the materials has to be collected by the Investigating Officer. Taking into note of the allegation with regard to the recovery of the amount of Rs.1,700/- from accused No.1 and also recovery of uniform from accused No.2 and also the very indulging of the criminal act by petitioners in a heinous offence of committing dacoity, the matters have to be probed. At this juncture, though this Court granted bail in favour of accused No.5 on the ground that no recovery at his instance, but these petitioners being the Government employees indulged in such an act of heinous offence under Section 395 of IPC and they are not entitled for the discretionary relief under section 439 of Cr.P.C., unless an investigation is completed.
10
following:
ORDER
The bail petitions are rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
cp*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to government employees charged with dacoity before investigation is completed.
Whether the recovery of uniforms and other materials from petitioners establishes prima facie case despite lack of test identification parade.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Basavaraj
Venugopalaiah
Udaya Kumar
State of Karnataka
H.P. Sanadesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
