Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. Krishnegowda a N

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2022CRL.P/136/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a criminal petition filed by the State to cancel bail granted to a police constable for offenses involving theft of live bullets. The Court held there was no capricious exercise of power by the trial court, though the bail was factually baseless.

What did the court decide?

The bail petition filed by the State was rejected, implying the bail order of the trial court stood as is.

State of Karnataka Vs Krishnegowda a N — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.136/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY T.NARASIPURA POLICE STATION

¶8

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S, HCGP)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KRISHNEGOWDA A.N. S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS HEAD CONSTABLE R/AT ANDUVINAHALLI EXTENSION NANJUNGUD TOWN MYSURU DISTRICT-570 001. … RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.09.2020 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1193/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, GRANTING BAIL TO THE ACCUSED-

¶15

¶16

RESPONDENT IN CR.NO.149/2020 (C.C.NO.204/2020) OF T.NARASIPURA POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 166, 180, 381, 419, 504, 506 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 27, 30, 35, 36 OF ARMS ACT AND UNDER SECTION 19 R/W. SECTION 61 OF INDIAN POST OFFICE ACT, AND ALSO UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE OFFICIALS SECRECY ACT AND ALSO UNDER SECTION 3 R/W. SECTION 4 OF POLICE FORCES (PREVENTION OF RIGHTS) ACT AND CANCEL THE SAID ORDER OF BAIL AND DIRECT THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO CUSTODY.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS ‘THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C, by the Petitioner - State praying to set aside the order dated 21.09.2020 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1193/2020 on the file of Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru, granting bail to the accused-respondent in Crime No.149/2020 of T. Narasipura Police Station, Mysuru District, for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 180, 381, 419, 504 and 506 of IPC and under Sections 27, 30, 35, 36 of Arms Act, 1959 and under Section 19

¶20

¶21

read with Section 61 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and also under Section 3 of the Officials Secrecy Act, 1923 and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 of Police Forces (Prevention of Rights) Act, 1966.

¶22

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

¶23

3. The present petition is filed for cancellation of bail

¶24

granted by the Trial Court vide order dated 21.09.2020 on the ground that the trial Judge has not properly appreciated the factual aspects of the case. The accused is a Police Constable and he had stolen 50 live bullets. Out of which, he has sent 5 live bullets each to the MLA., Superior Officers and also the Media Persons and the remaining bullets were thrown in the river. The charges leveled against the accused are under Sections 166, 180, 381, 419, 504 and 506 of IPC and under Sections 27, 30, 35, 36 of Arms Act, 1959 and under Section 19 read with Section 61 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and also under Section 3 of the Officials Secrecy Act, 1923 and also under

¶25

¶26

Section 3 read with Section 4 of Police Forces (Prevention of Rights) Act, 1966.

¶27

The learned High Court Government Pleader

¶28

appearing for the petitioner/State has brought to the notice of the Court paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the order of the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.1193/2020. The Trial Court while granting bail exercising the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., comes to the conclusion that the offences are not exclusively punishable with death. Apart from that, since the charge sheet has already been filed, the Trial Court does not find any ground to continue the respondent in judicial custody. Further, the trial Judge made an observation that there are 107 witnesses cited by the prosecution and about 60 documents produced by the Investigating Officer along with the Charge Sheet. The Charge Sheet is voluminous and it runs to 583 pages. These are the

¶29

reasons given and these reasons are not the sound reasons while granting the bail and mere there are 107 witnesses cannot be a ground to enlarge him on bail. The fact that the accused is a Police Constable and he was in the custody for a period of

¶30

¶31

three months is not in dispute. The charge sheet has already been filed is also not in dispute. During the course of investigation, he was in custody.

¶32

When such being the factual aspects of the case and also this Court does not found any material that those letters are sent to the MLA., Media persons and superior officers are in the handwriting of this petitioner and no such report was collected. When such being the facts of the case, when he was in the custody for a period of three months, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶33

6. While cancelling the bail, there must be two reasons.

¶34

One is capricious exercise of the powers by the Trial Court and another is violation of bail conditions. Here is not a case of violation of bail conditions and only exercising of the powers by the Trial Court and not considering the materials and the offences invoked against him. I have already pointed out that when the investigation has been completed and the accused being a Government Servant, he will be available for the trial.

¶35

¶36

Hence, I do not find any merit to exercise the powers under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶37

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶38

following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The bail petition is rejected.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

cp*

State of Karnataka v. Krishnegowda a N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Krishnegowda a N

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 Mohammed Zaid Vs State by

Gangadhara @ Gangadharappa Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs G. Ningappa Nishani Mallappa @ G.N.Mallappa

The State of Karnataka Vs Ajith T

State of Karnataka Vs K.P.Harish

State of Karnataka Vs Chandan K.P. @ Chandankumar