Allowed

Y Nagappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2023CRL.P/1510/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 438 CrPC regarding offences under IT Act and IPC, the High Court allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail by imposing conditions to join investigation and prevent witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail upon arrest by executing a bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety; directed to join investigation on 13.03.2023 and appear regularly; bail cancellable if conditions violated.

Y Nagappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 1510 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1510 OF 2023

¶7

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Y.NAGAPPA AGED 49 YEARS, S/O SANNARUDRAPPA R/AT NO.2299, 3^RD ‘B’ MAIN RPC LAYOUT, HAMPINAGAR VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 104.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANNAPOORNESHWARINAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.106/2020 OF ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3,4,5,6 OF ITP ACT AND SEC.370 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE V ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.28896/2021 AND ETC.,

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 1510 of 2023

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri.Prabhugoud B.Tumbigi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vishwamurthy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶22

Present petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶23

“Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to order for the release of the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.3 on bail in the event of his arrest, in CC No.28896/2021 (Crime No.106/2020) registered by the Annapoorneshwarinagara Police, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under sectin 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and section 370 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending on the file of the Hon’ble V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in the interest of justice.”

¶24

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶25

Sri.Sreenivasa V.T, Police Officer attached to

¶26

Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police Station, Kengeri Gate Sub Division, Bengaluru City have registered a case in Crime No.106/2020 on 20.06.2020 for the offences punishable under

¶27

3 - CRL.P No. 1510 of 2023

¶28

Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and section 370 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 20.06.2020. According to the report, prostitution was going on in the house belonging to the petitioner and the petitioner being the owner of the said house, he was also arraigned as accused No.3 in the said crime.

¶29

Soon after the petitioner came to know about the registration of the case against him, he approached the Additional District Judge, Bengaluru in C.Misc. No.529/2023 seeking for grant of anticipatory bail. The same is turned down by order dated 30.01.2023.

¶30

Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court reiterating the grounds urged in the petition.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Prabhugoud B.Tumbigi vehemently contended that the petitioner is a responsible citizen of the Society, working as a Senior Scientific Officer and he had no clue of whatsoever that such an activity was being carried out in the house which was rented out to the accused No.1 and therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶32

¶33

CRL.P No. 1510 of 2023

¶34

Per contra, learned HCGP opposes the bail.

¶35

Perused the material on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was not made known about the incident and he could come to know about the incident only in the month of January, 2023.

¶36

The petitioner is not residing in the house where incident took place and was residing in Vijayanagar and now working in Nasik. The house no doubt belonged to the petitioner; but it was rented out to accused No.1. The alleged incident has taken place during the period of Covid 2019 Pandemic.

¶37

Since there was a lock down, the petitioner was not in a position to visit the tenanted premises regularly.

¶38

Be that as it may, the Investigating Agency and the Court would decide as to the involvement of the petitioner in the incident.

¶39

The material on record does not disentitle the petitioner from obtaining an order of grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C. The apprehension expressed by

¶40

5 - CRL.P No. 1510 of 2023

¶41

the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable and stringent conditions. Accordingly, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶44

(ii) The petitioner is directed to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigation Officer on 13.03.2023 and in the event of his arrest, the petitioner be enlarged on bail on executing a bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the likesum.

¶45

(iii) The petitioner shall also appear before the Court regularly on all dates of hearing.

¶46

(iv) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶47

If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

¶50

Y Nagappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y Nagappa 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

Rohith @ Sai Vs State of Karnataka

Venkatesh G Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhaskar B R Vs State by

Sri Sagayaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Dr. Lakshmikantha S R Vs State of Karnataka

Sharath Yadav @ Sharath Vs State of Karnataka