Criminal Petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a dacoity case. Court rejected bail due to petitioner's criminal antecedents, reliance on circumstantial evidence, and likelihood of absconding.
Petition for bail dismissed; petitioner denied bail.
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 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1332/2022
BETWEEN :
BALAKRISHNA V S/O LATE ADINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT C/O VIJAYAKUMAR RENTED HOUSE KALLUBALU VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE - 562106 NATIVE ADDRESS : VELLAGUTURU VILLAGE NEAR PUNGANURU PEDDA MANJALI MANDALA CHITOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 517247 … PETITIONER (BY SRI:MOHAN KUMAR D, ADVOCATE)
AND :
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBAGODI PS, BENGALURU REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF COMPLEX BANGALORE - 560001
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: V.S VINAYAKA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.259/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 396 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.259/2020 of Hebbagodi Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant – Murali Mohan.
the petitioner and Sri. V.S.Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record. However, after addressing the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has taken no objection vakalath from him.
3
Since the investigation is already completed, the detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of 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.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Voluntary statement of the present petitioner was recorded on 30.09.2020 and at his instance a two wheeler and a gold chain were recovered in the presence of panchas and seizure mahazar was drawn. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are in judicial custody and charge sheet has already been filed. The matter is pending for committal. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
4
“Whether the petitioner is entitled
for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the
following:
R E A S O N S
5
Anekal Police Station is also registered against him. After getting released on bail in the said criminal case, the petitioner is said to have committed the offence as alleged in the present case. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, I answer the above point in negative.
Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
RJ
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
BALAKRISHNA V S/O LATE ADINARAYANA
STATE OF KARNATAKA
M.G. UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
