Dismissed

Prathap Singh @ Prem Bahaddur Khatri v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2023CRL.P/473/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a bail petition filed by two non-resident accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. accused were charged with robbery involving tying and injuring a lone mother. The Court found the apprehension that non-residents might abscond sufficient to deny bail despite the charge sheet being filed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition rejected; bail denied to petitioners.

Prathap Singh @ Prem Bahaddur Khatri Vs State of Karnataka… — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 473 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.473 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PRATHAP SINGH @ PREM BAHADDUR KHATRI S/O PARI KHATRI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT C/O NO.17/18 MANJUGIRI, LIC COLONY KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SCHOOL ROAD IN FRONT OF ISRO HOSPITAL JEEVANBHEEMA NAGAR BANGALORE 560 075

¶10

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

PERMANENT ADDRESS AT MUMRA VILLAGE WARD NO.6, MELAMADI POLICE STATION SANNI TRIBENI, KALLIKOT DISTRICT NEPAL 21304

¶12

SANGEETHA @ SONU B.K. W/O PRATHAP SINGH @ PREM BAHADDUR KHATRI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT C/O NO.17/18 MANJUGIRI, LIC COLONY KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SCHOOL ROAD IN FRONT OF ISRO HOSPITAL JEEVANBHEEMA NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 075

¶13

PERMANENT ADDRESS AT KALI MATA KALACHI VILLAGE WARD NO.05, BAKLAVA SALYAN

¶14

CRL.P No. 473 of 2023

¶15

¶16

SALYAN DISTRICT NEPAL - 21304

¶17

BEESHNU BAHADDURA SAHAKARI S/O BIRKA SAHAKARI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT C/O NO.101/2 2^ND 'H' MAIN ROAD, KASTHURI NAGAR NEAR BBMP OFFICE RAMAMURTHI NAGAR BENGALURU JEEVANBHEEMA NAGAR BANGALORE 560 075 PERMANENT ADDRESS AT PURCHEGAVU VILALGE WARD NO.5 RAJAKOT POLICE STATION KALIKOT DISTRICT KARNALI STATE NEPAL - 21304

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. SURESH JAGANNATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.KUMARA K. G., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JEEVANBHEEMA NAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE 562 110

¶22

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDNG BANGALORE 560 001

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI.S.VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP)

¶25

¶26

CRL.P No. 473 of 2023

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL JN CR.NO.133/2022 OF JEEVAN BHEEMANAGAR P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.1822/2022 AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Heard Sri.Suresh Jagannath, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri.S.Vishwa Murthy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶31

The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶32

“Wherefore, the petitioners (accused No.1, 2 & 4) most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enlarge them on bail in SC. No.1822/2022, which is arising out of Crime No.133/2022 of the respondent Jeevanbheema Nagar police station, Bangalore which is pending on the file of the HON'BLE XIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU for the offences under Sections 397 read with section 34 of I.P.C. on such terms and conditions, in the ends of justice."

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 473 of 2023

¶35

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶36

Upon a complaint lodged by Sri.Vinod G., son of Giriyappa

¶37

R., with Jayanagar Police, registered in Crime No.133/2022 on 29.06.2022 for the offences punishable under Section 397 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

¶38

Gist of the complaint averments reveal that the petitioners joined the house of the complainant for the purpose of security work and they were also accommodated in the basement of the house of the complainant. The petitioners taking advantage of the lonliness of the mother of the complainant, tied the mother of the complainant with a rope and committed robbery in the house and took away cash of Rs.10 lakhs and gold ornaments. After registering the case, Police apprehended the petitioners and recovered part of the cash which was robbed from the house of the complainant.

¶39

Investigating agency after thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioners herein and matter is now pending for trial. Taking note of the fact that the petitioners are the permanent residents of Nepal country, the bail request made by the petitioners was turned-down by the

¶40

5 - CRL.P No. 473 of 2023

¶41

learned District Judge in Criminal Misc. No.26057/2022 vide order dated 20.12.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶42

Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that since the charge sheet is filed, continuation of the accused/petitioners in judicial custody is no longer warranted and the apprehension of the prosecution is that the accused/petitioners would not be available for the trial and therefore, by imposing suitable and stringent conditions, including directing a local surety and sought for grant of bail.

¶43

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the bail petition by contending that the petitioners are admittedly residents of Nepal country and petitioners No.1 and 2 joined the house of the complainant for security work and they were also accommodated in the basement of the house. Petitioners have hatched a plan by taking advantage of the loneliness of the mother of the complainant, robbed the house by tying the mother of the complainant with rope and they have stolen away Rs.10 lakhs

¶44

¶45

CRL.P No. 473 of 2023

¶46

cash and gold ornaments and it is heinous in nature and sought for rejection of the bail.

¶47

This Court perused the records meticulously in the light of the rival contentions.

¶48

Admittedly, the petitioners are not resident of this country. Petitioners No.1 and 2 came to the house of the complainant for security work. On humanitarian grounds they were also accommodated in the basement of the house of the complainant.

¶49

Observing the activities in the house of the complainant and also taking advantage of the lonliness of the mother of the complainant, the petitioners have hatched a plan to rob the house of the complainant and on the fateful day, when the complainant was away from the house, the petitioners have robbed the house of the complainant by tying the mother of the complainant with a rope inside the house. After registering the case, investigating agency is in a position to trace the petitioners and seize part of the cash from the custody of the petitioners.

¶50

¶51

CRL.P No. 473 of 2023

¶52

These aspects of the matter also resulted in filing of

¶53

the charge sheet against the petitioners.

¶54

The matter is pending for trial. Taking note of the fact that the petitioners are not the residents of this country, there is sufficient force in the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that they may not be available for trial, if enlarged on bail.

¶55

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the grounds urged in the petition are hardly sufficient to consider the bail request of the petitioners, by resorting to the special powers vested under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶56

Hence, the following order is passed:

¶57

O R D E R

¶58

The Criminal Petition is rejected .

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

GVP

Prathap Singh @ Prem Bahaddur Khatri v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prathap Singh @ Prem Bahaddur Khatri 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

Smt. Rani Vs State by Banasawadi Police Station

Chikkanarasimhaiah @ Chikkanarasaiah Vs State by Annapoorneshwari Nagar P.S.

Umaidh M Vs the State of Karnataka

Naveen Purushotham Vs State of Karnataka

Shivaraju @ Shivu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Devarajegowda Vs the State of Karnataka