Dismissed

Sri Rangantha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2022CRL.P/10511/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal PETITION No. 10511 of 2022. The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru rejected the bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., holding that the petitioner's involvement in transporting robbed goods and recovery of stolen articles established prima facie material evidence, and the serious nature of the offence precluded bail.

What did the court decide?

The petition for bail was rejected and the petitioner remains in judicial custody.

Sri Rangantha Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10511 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. RANGANTHA S/O PARUSHURAMA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/O SIDDIKERI CAMP GANGAVATHI-583227 KOPPALA DISTRICT.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BHARAMASAGARA POLICE REPRESENTED ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.201/2022 OF BHARAMASAGARA P.S., CHITRADURGA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504,342,395,506 OF IPC.,

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for enlarging him on regular bail in Crime No.201/2022 of Bharamsagara Police Station, initially registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC which was culminated in submission of charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 342, 504 and 506 of IPC.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent-State and perused the records.

¶21

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the complainant is working as a cleaner in a lorry bearing No. KA-06/AA-7627 and one Hanumanthappa was the driver. It is alleged that they have loaded goods namely Vimal Pan Masala bags belonging to Siddi agency to deliver the same to SS Traders Davanagere. Driver in

¶22

¶23

order to take rest asked the cleaner to drive the lorry and as such the complainant/cleaner was driving the lorry on NH-48 on 27.06.2022 at about 3.40 a.m., near Bharamsagara Golrahatti the unknown car has overtaken the lorry and it is reported that the back door of the lorry was open and to check it, the complainant stopped the lorry and inspected the door but it was intact. Suddenly four persons from the car got down and surrounded the complainant and his hands and mouth were tied, then they have also threatened the driver who was sleeping and his hands were also tied and a cello tape was attached to their face. They were also threatened by showing the knife and then they drove the lorry towards Bharamsagara village near old P.B road. In Bharmasagara in front of a puncture shop the lorry driven by the present petitioner came and the goods which were loaded in the lorry of the complainant were reloaded to the lorry bearing No.KA-37B-4045 driven by the present petitioner and they all fled. The robbed goods were worth of Rs.18,60,375/- and in this regard the complainant has lodged a complaint. The

¶24

¶25

crime was registered and during the course of the investigation the Investigating Officer has apprehended the accused including the present petitioner and robbed goods were recovered.

¶26

It is also alleged that two gully bags containing Vimal Pan Masala Packets worth of Rs.38,000/- were recovered from the custody of the present petitioner and after completion of the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet.

¶27

The petitioner was produced before the concerned magistrate and he was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge and learned Sessions Judge has rejected his bail petition and hence, he is before this Court.

¶28

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the petitioner was the driver of the canter lorry bearing No. KA-37 B-4045 which was used for transportation of the robbed goods. No doubt the

¶29

¶30

petitioner did not participated in the offence of actual robbery but he was part of conspiracy as after completion of robbery, he went to the spot in his vehicle and the robbed goods were transported. It is further evident from the records that two gunny bags containing Vimal Pan Masala packets worth of Rs.38,000/- were recovered from the custody of the present petitioner, which is alleged to have been shared by all the accused.

¶31

Prima-facie there is material evidence regarding the involvement of the petitioner. The Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet under Section 395 of IPC. However the allegations does establish that while committing the robbery the accused Nos.1 to 4 have used the knife and threatened the complainant and the driver. Hence it is evident that the ingredients of Section 397 are attracted rather than 395. There is a recovery at the instance of the present petitioner and merely because the charge sheet has been laid down, it is not a ground for admitting the petitioner on bail. The offences are serious in nature and robbery was committed on a Highway in night

¶32

¶33

hours and such matters cannot be taken in a light way. Considering these facts and circumstances, the petition is being devoid of any merits does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the petition is rejected .

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Sri Rangantha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rangantha v. the 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

Sri. S H Kulkarni Vs the Divisional Controller

Aboobakkar Siddique. B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Swamy @ Nagendra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Janardhan. P @ Janni Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunath @ Mapilai Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka