Allowed

Vajramani a v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2022CRL.P/7946/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an accused in a robbery case. The petitioner sought bail due to the failure of authorities to submit the charge sheet within the 60-day statutory period, citing statutory rights under Section 167(2)(a) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including not tampering with witnesses and attending hearings.

Vajramani a Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7946/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

VAJRAMANI A S/O ALIMATTU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT NO.3472 1^ST CROSS, KAVERI NAGARA BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE BIDARAHALLI BENGALURU - 560070 (BY SRI.DEESHNA P.K, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶7

….PETITIONER

¶8

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY TURUVANURU (JOGI) POLICE STATION TURUVANURU TURUVANURU ROAD CHITRADURGA - 577501

¶9

...RESPONDENT

¶10

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) *****

¶11

¶12

THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.147/2021 (C.C.NO.759/2022) OF TURUVANURU P.S., CHITRADURGA PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 395, 397, 448, 114, 120B, 201 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.4 under

¶16

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging him on regular bail in Crime No.147/2021 of Turuvanur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 448, 114, 120B and 201 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) pending on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Chitradurga.

¶17

The brief factual matrix leading to the case is that on 28.11.2021 at about 8.15 p.m., after having dinner, the complainant, his wife, children and grandson were sitting in the house and at that time, suddenly three persons covering their faces entered into the house and one person locked the

¶18

¶19

door and another person i.e., the present petitioner – accused No.4 showed the knife and robbed cash of Rs.1,00,000/- along with golden and silver Articles. It is further alleged that other accused were watching outside and subsequently, fled away from the spot. In this regard, complainant has lodged the complaint against unknown persons and the case was registered. The petitioner along with other accused were apprehended on 17.12.2021 and certain recoveries alleged to have made by the police. Then, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet on 22.02.2022. The petitioner has approached the Sessions Judge but, his bail petition came to

¶20

be rejected and hence, he is before this Court.

¶21

Heard arguments and perused the records.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

¶23

all other accused having been granted bail and even learned Magistrate has not considered the grant of statutory bail as charge sheet was not submitted within stipulated period of 60

¶24

¶25

days. He would also contend that petitioner is arrested only on the basis of the confession statement of accused No.1. Hence, he would seek for enlarging the petitioner on bail on the ground of parity.

¶26

Per contra , the learned HCGP has seriously objected the bail petition denying the allegations and assertions made therein. It is contended that offence under Section 397 of IPC is directed against the present petitioner and hence, sought for rejection of the bail petition.

¶27

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that petitioner was arrested on 17.12.2021 at 6.30 p.m., and thereafter he was taken to police custody for interrogation and certain recoveries were also said to have been made. Subsequently, accused were produced before the learned Magistrate and were remanded to the juridical custody. However, charge sheet was not

¶28

¶29

submitted within stipulated period and charge sheet was

¶30

submitted on 22.02.2022 as per the records available.

¶31

The requisition was said to have submitted on 17.02.2022 and the same was put up on 19.02.2022. However, the charge sheet came to be submitted on 22.02.2022. Admittedly, charge sheet is submitted after 60 days. Learned Sessions Judge ought to have considered this aspect but the same was not considered. The said issue is not canvassed before the learned Sessions Judge while arguing the matter for the first time. This issue has been dealt in detail in Criminal Petition No.4474/2022 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering the bail petition of the other two accused i.e., accused Nos.1 and 5. Further the petitioner is in custody for nearly 10 months and investigation is concluded and charge sheet is submitted. He has acquired statutory right to claim the bail as per Section 167(2)(a) of Cr.P.C. Considering these facts and

¶32

¶33

circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed . The petitioner/Accused No.4 is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.147/2021 of Turuvanuru Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 448, 114, 120B, 201 of IPC, which is pending on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga in C.C.No.759/2022, on his executing 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 trial Court, subject to the following conditions that,-

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

v) He shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the matter.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

NBM

Vajramani a v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vajramani a 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

Smt Jyothi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. P. Naveen Kumar Vs the Sriram General Insurance

Sri Jattoji Rao @ Appaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Akshay Vs the State of Karnataka

Nishanth. B Vs State of Karnataka by

C v Raghavendra Vs State by