Allowed

Sumesh K P v. State by

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2022CRL.P/7879/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka enlarged the accused on bail in a robbery and poisoning case. The Court noted the petitioner's long custody, the crime's non-capital nature, and investigation flaws, granting bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for Rs.1,00,000 each.

Sumesh K P Vs State by — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7879 /2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUMESH K P S/O LATE VASUDEVAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT KANNAKKUPALLIYALLIL HOUSE ANAMANGAD POST, PERINDA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 679 357

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.HEMANTH KUMAR S R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY HASSAN CITY POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY Sri K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.39/2020 (CR.NO.436/2018) OF HASSAN CITY POLICE STATION, HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 328, 380 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, AT HASSAN.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging him on bail in Crime No.436/2018 of Hassan City Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 328 and 380 of IPC.

¶19

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

¶20

that:

¶21

On 22.12.2018 at about 5.20 p.m. complainant lodged complaint making allegations that the accused became known to him through phone calls and on 28.11.2018 at 4.00 p.m. the accused called him to S.S.Residency Hotel situated in Hassan at 5.00 p.m. When the complainant went to the said hotel, the accused offered an Apple juice and when he consumed the Apple juice he become unconscious and when he woke up he found that the gold chain worth of Rs.70,000/- weighing 24 grams was missing from his neck. In this regard he lodged the complaint on 22.12.2018, though the offence said to have been committed on 28.11.2018. Accused was arrested in another crime and his presence in this case was secured under body warrant.

¶22

¶23

Admittedly, accused was arrested in another crime and recovery was made in said crime and subsequently he made an application for bail which came to be rejected. Hence he approached this Court.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶25

It is evident from the records that accused was

¶26

habitual offender and is involved in five similar offences. It is submitted that in one of the case he was acquitted. However, all other cases are same in the nature having same modus operandi of administrating the drugs to the persons and thereafter committing the offence of robbing the persons who were unconscious because of influence of the drugs. In the instance case same thing occurred. However, the alleged offences said to have been committed on 28.11.2018 but the complaint was lodged on 22.12.2018. There is delay. It appears that only on the basis of apprehension of the accused in another case, on interrogation and recovery

¶27

¶28

made in other crime wherein the accused was arrested, this

¶29

crime got registered at the instance of police.

¶30

Further it is also evident that the accused is in judicial custody for more than 3½ years. It is submitted that the trial has not yet begun. The trial Court ought to have given preference to the matter wherein the accused is in custody. But the records speak a different way.

¶31

It is also important to note that the complainant has seen the accused only for the first time in Hotel but Investigating Officer did not hold any test identification parade. It is submitted that the complainant has identified the accused in the police station. But it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to hold test identification parade.

¶32

The way in which the investigation was done, it clearly discloses that in a mechanical way the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet and washed his hand.

¶33

The offences are not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment. Considering that the accused is

¶34

¶35

in judicial custody for more than 3½ years and considering non holding of identification parade, in my considered opinion, he is entitled for bail. The other apprehensions can be meted by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed . The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in respect of Crime No.436/2018 of Hassan City Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 328 and 380 of IPC on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that,-

¶38

i) He shall not indulge in any of the criminal activities

¶39

ii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶40

iii) He shall regularly appear before the learned Sessions Judge and shall cooperate with speedy disposal of the matter.

¶41

¶42

iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court, without prior permission

¶43

v) He shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific order.

¶44

vi) Learned Sessions judge is also directed to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Pkn

Sumesh K P v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumesh K P v. State by

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

Smt Seethamma Vs State by Subramanya Police Station

Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammad Hyder Ali @ Hyder @ Hyder Khan Vs State of Karnataka

K N Shivaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghu @ Raghuram Nayak Vs State of Karnataka

T N Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka