Dismissed

Sri Mohana v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2022CRL.P/82/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court rejected the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail in offenses involving assault and snatching under Sections 394 and 506 IPC. The Court observed the petitioner as a habitual offender with multiple pending cases, deeming the case unfit for discretionary bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

Sri Mohana Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRL.P.NO.82/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MOHANA S/O SIDDAIAH AGED 25 YEARS, R/AT R.P.HUNDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 401.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.HARSHAKUMAR GOWDA H.R., ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY T.NARASIPURA POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.KRISHNA KUMAR,.K.K., HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 438 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.202/2021 OF T.NARASIPURA P.S., MYSURU DISTRICT FOR

¶15

¶16

THE OFFENCE P/U/S 394 AND 506 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CJM COURT, T.NARASIPURA, MYSURU DISTRICT

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C

¶20

praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.202/2021 registered by the T. Narasipura Police Station, Mysore District, for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 506 of IPC.

¶21

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the State.

¶22

The factual matrix of the case is that on

¶23

03.06.2021 when the complainant was returning to his village after closing his Medical Shop at about 10.00 p.m.

¶24

along with cash of Rs.70,000/- and other documents, three persons came in motor cycle from his rear side and assaulted him on his back with a club, when he turned

¶25

¶26

back, they poured chilly powder to his eyes immediately after that they dragged him to a nearby field assaulted him and snatched 23 grams gold bangle from his right hand, 30 grams gold chain and cash of Rs.70,000/- and threatened him, stating that he has to leave his medical shop and move somewhere or otherwise they would kill him.

¶27

The counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶28

submit that there was delay of one day in filing the complaint. Based on the statement of accused 1 and 2 who are co-accused, he has been arrayed as petitioner

¶29

but there are no other criminal antecedents and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶30

Per contra, learned High Court Govt. Pleader appearing for respondent would contend that while making recovery, a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been recovered and remaining amount is with the accused

¶31

¶32

persons. Hence it is necessary to apprehend the petitioner and recover the gold ornaments and balance amount of cash. Also there are other cases pending against the petitioner in Crime Nos.327, 239/2021, 329/2021 and 117/2021 and Crime No.10/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. Totally there are five cases against him and hence he is habitual offender.

¶33

Having heard the arguments of counsel for the petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the State, this Court should examine whether it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. when specific allegation made by the complainant is that three persons came in a motor cycle and assaulted him with club and also that they poured chilly powder and snatched Rs.70,000/- cash and also gold ornaments and when the matter is under investigation and also recovery of balance amount has to be made and appears he is a

¶34

¶35

habitual offender and hence not a fit case to exercise powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶36

In view of the same, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The bail petition is rejected.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

NG*

Sri Mohana v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohana v. 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

Y J Madhu Vs State by Tarikere Police

Puttaraju @ Ravi Vs State by Handanakere Police Station

Apporva Choudary Vs State of Karnataka

Kumar @ Kumarappa Vs State by Drfo

Kiran Babu S Vs State of Karnataka

H G Naveen Naika @ Bhandary Vs State by Sakarayapatna Police