Allowed

Puttaraju @ Ravi v. State by Handanakere Police Station

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2022CRL.P/142/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in a snatching case. The court held that the mere registration of another case against the petitioner was insufficient to deny bail as the charge-sheet did not establish a prima facie case linking the petitioner to the offence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed bail on Rs. 2,00,000 personal bond with two sureties of equal sum, subject to conditions against tampering with witnesses, future appearance, and not leaving jurisdiction.

Puttaraju @ Ravi Vs State by Handanakere Police Station — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.142/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PUTTARAJU @ RAVI, S/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT GERUPALYA, NOW R/AT C/O KAMALAMMA, GULAGALLI, BAGI POST, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573134.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI MOHAMMED UMMAR FAROOQ, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY HANDANAKERE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560001. ...RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.1136/2021 (CR.NO.61/2016) OF HANDANAKERE P.S., TUMAKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 34 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND C.J.M COURT, CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI, TUMKUR.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.61/2016 of Handanakere Police Station, Tumkur District, for the offence punishable under Section 397 read with 34 of IPC.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶20

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶21

The factual matrix of the case is that on 15.06.2016 at about 11.00 a.m., when C.W.1 was standing, accused Nos.1 to 4 came in two motorcycles and snatched the chain from her neck weighing about 35 grams and subsequently when accused No.2 was apprehended, he gave the statement that on 15.06.2016, accused Nos.1 to 3 snatched the gold chain and the same was pledged with Attica Gold Company and the same was recovered.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶23

that another case was registered against this petitioner and he

¶24

was taken to custody by issuing body warrant in Crime No.61/2016 and in this case he has been falsely implicated and

¶25

¶26

from column No.17 of the charge-sheet it is clear that accused No.2 has stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 went in motorcycle and snatched the gold chain and there is no mention of accused No.4 and hence he has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶27

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that other case is also registered against the petitioner and he has been secured by issuance of body warrant and he is a habitual offender and hence there is a prima facie case against the petitioner.

¶28

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶29

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and on perusal of the material available on record, particularly column No.17 of the chare-sheet, it is the case of the prosecution that accused No.2 gave statement on 28.05.2021 that accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the offence on 15.06.2016 by snatching the gold chain weighing 33 grams, which was pledged in Attica Gold Company and also recovery was made, but there is no material against the petitioner that he had indulged in snatching the chain and pledging the same.

¶30

¶31

Taking note of the column No.17 of the charge-sheet, accused No.2 made the statement on 28.05.2021, wherein also he has stated only against accused Nos.1 to 3. When such being the factual aspects of the case, mere registration of other case against the petitioner cannot be a ground to reject the bail petition, unless prima facie case is made out in this case and no such prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.

¶32

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶33

following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.61/2016 of Handanakere Police Station, Tumkur District, for the offence punishable under Section 397 read with 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶36

(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶37

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

¶39

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶40

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Puttaraju @ Ravi v. State by Handanakere Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puttaraju @ Ravi v. State by Handanakere Police Station

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 Ramanji Vs State of Karnataka

Ashis Vs State by Channapatna Town P.S.

Arun @ Arun Kumar R Vs State by Women Police Station

Y J Madhu Vs State by Tarikere Police

Apporva Choudary Vs State of Karnataka

Keshava M P Vs State of Karnataka