Allowed

Veerabhadra Swamy S @ Ravi Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2022CRL.P/2193/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, through H.P. Sandesh J., disposed of a Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by a practicing advocate for anticipatory bail, allowing the relief subject to conditions including surrender, insulation of witnesses, residence orders, and monthly attendance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and two sureties, subject to residence, non-hampering of investigation, and monthly attendance with Investigating Officer.

Veerabhadra Swamy S @ Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2193 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

VEERABHADRA SWAMY S @ RAVI KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O SADASHIVAIAH, R/AT NO.14, 1^ST CROSS, CHIKKASWAMY LAYOUT, JARAGANAHALLI, J P NAGAR POST, BENGALURU SOUTH – 560 078.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PALLAVA R., ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MAHALAKSHMIPURAM P.S., BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.PRASHANTH V MOGALI, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.24/2022 REGISTERED BY

¶15

¶16

MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 386, 143, 147, 448, 323, 506, 342 R/W 149 OF IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in CR.No.24/2022 registered by Mahalakshmipuram Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 386, 143, 147, 448, 323, 506, 342 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

The factual matrix of the prosecution case is, both the complainant and the accused are advocates. Both of them were practising in the very same office as senior and junior counsel. During that time, case was entrusted and regarding payment of fee, there were differences and also with regard to

¶22

¶23

entrusted case, payment was made in the month of September, 2020 in favour of accused No.1 through cheque and case papers were also returned. Hence, accused No.1 nurtured the grudge against the complainant and all of them by forming an unlawful assembly, trespassed the house, snatched the mobile phone belonging to complainant’s wife and assaulted him with hands. When questioned, they confined him in a room and also caused life threat. They demanded an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to be given as compensation and forced to take the cases and obtained signatures on the sale agreement and also got transferred the amount through Google Pay and Phone Pay, to the tune of totally Rs.1,00,000/- and also threatened with dire consequences.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶25

the complainant is also a practising advocate and accused No.1 is also a practising advocate and main allegation is made against accused No.1. The only allegation against this petitioner is that this petitioner took the complainant to accused No.1 and main offence invoked against the petitioner is Section 386 of IPC and

¶26

¶27

the same is due to a professional dispute between them and this petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶28

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the specific allegation is also made against this petitioner that he joined in the unlawful assembly and caused life threat and also assaulted the complainant and hence, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner.

¶29

Having heard respective learned counsel for the parties and particularly taking note of the accusation made against this petitioner and also the dispute is between advocates i.e. complainant as well as accused No.1, and the dispute is with regard to entrustment of case and also payment of fee to conduct cases and there is also an allegation that amount was transferred through Google Pay and Phone Pay in favour of the accused No.1 and not against this petitioner, it is fit case to exercise power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner.

¶30

¶31

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶32

following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with CR.No.24/2022 registered by Mahalakshmipuram Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 386, 143, 147, 448, 323, 506, 342 read with Section 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-

¶35

(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a 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 concerned Investigating Officer.

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

¶39

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

¶40

(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30^th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

sac*

Veerabhadra Swamy S @ Ravi Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerabhadra Swamy S @ Ravi Kumar 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

Nandu Kumar Vs State by

Abhishek Vs State by Excise Pi

Nihas Vs State by Excise Pi

Chand Pasha @ Bande Chand Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagesh G C @ Nagesh Reddy Vs State by

Lawrence @ a. Anand Vs State of Karnataka