Dismissed

Ramesh S/O Subamani v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2022CRL.P/9230/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the request for regular bail. The petitioner, accused in a robbery and dacoity case involving possession of an iron rod, was denied bail citing his history of similar offences and habitual offending.

What did the court decide?

Petition for regular bail rejected; accused not entitled to relief.

Ramesh S/O Subamani Vs State of Karnataka by — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.9230/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

RAMESH S/O SUBAMANI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.50 NEAR AKHANDESHWARA TEMPLE BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGAR 1^ST BLOCK BANGALORE CITY-560 011

¶7

….PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SYED MUZAKKIR AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY: THILAKNAGAR POLICE BANGALORE CITY-560 041 (REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001)

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.97/2022 OF THE THILAKNAGAR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.399 AND 400 OF IPC AND SEC.25(1-B) OF ARMS ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.24648/2022.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1

¶18

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No.97/2022 of Thilaknagar Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 & 402 and Section 25(1-B) Arms Act, which is pending on the file of XXXVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶20

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondentState.

¶21

As per the case of prosecution, on 02.06.2022 at about 8.30 a.m., the complainant, who is the SHO of the said police station, was on patrolling duty in LIC Colony, Jayanagar 3^rd Block and at that time, he received a credible information that, near the swimming pool situated in 22^nd Cross, Jayanagar 3^rd Block, five persons

¶22

¶23

have gathered by making preparation for commission of robbery by holding deadly weapons and immediately, he lodged a complaint and then along with his staff, proceeded to the spot and apprehended the present petitioner/Accused No.1 and other accused, wherein the present petitioner was found in possession of an iron-rod and other accused were also found in possession of other deadly weapons. He recovered the material objects and issued the FIR against them for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, wherein the present petitioner has arraigned as Accused No.1. The petitioner/Accused No.1 moved a bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge and that petition came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition for bail before this Court.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶25

petitioner/Accused No.1 and the learned HCGP for the Respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶26

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused

¶28

No.1 would contend that the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to other accused in this case and the bail petition of the present petitioner was rejected only on the ground that, he is involved in other crimes. He would also contend that the charge sheet has already been filed and hence, he would seek for enlarging the petitioner on bail.

¶29

Per contra, learned HCGP opposes the bail petition contending that the petitioner/Accused No.1 is a habitual offender and if he is released on bail, he would involve in similar offences and the same was highlighted in Para-9 of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, and as such, he would seek for rejection of the bail petition.

¶30

Having heard the arguments and perusing the

¶31

records, it is evident that the petitioner/Accused No.1 along with other accused was apprehended on 02.06.2022 at about 8.30 a.m, near the Swimming Pool

¶32

¶33

at Jayanagar, when he along with other accused assembled there with an intention to commit criminal offences. The records also disclose that the weapon-iron rod was recovered from the custody of the petitioner. It is also evident from the records that the present petitioner was already involved in Crime Nos.34/2022, 41/2022 and 297/2017 for the offence under Section 398 of IPC. It is also evident that the petitioner is also involved in similar offences and the Sessions Case No.1491/2018 is also registered by Thilak Nagar Police and the same is still pending, wherein he attempted to commit robbery.

¶34

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, other accused have already been granted bail by the Sessions Court is not a ground for granting bail to the petitioner in this case, as he is at liberty to approach the Sessions Judge on the ground of parity. But, the learned Sessions Judge has appreciated the documentary evidence and mere submission of the

¶35

¶36

charge sheet does not give the petitioner any right to seek bail on the ground of parity. The alleged offences are serious in nature and they were made preparation for committing robbery and dacoity, and the material objects were also recovered at the instance of the present petitioner. The petitioner is involved in similar offences and appears to be a habitual offender.

¶37

Looking to the facts and circumstances and

¶38

the nature as well as gravity of the offences alleged, the petitioner/Accused No.1 is not entitled for the relief of bail at this juncture. Hence, the petition being devoid of any merits, is required to be rejected.

¶39

Accordingly, the petition stands rejected .

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

KGR* CT:NR

Ramesh S/O Subamani v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh S/O Subamani v. State of Karnataka 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

Mr Suresha Vs Sri Girisha

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Indu Singh

Smt Indu Singh Vs Mr Jagadeesha D

Smt Seethamma Vs State by Subramanya Police Station

Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

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