Allowed

Sharath a P @ Sharu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2023CRL.P/838/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in pending criminal cases involving robbery and attempted murder, conditioning it upon joining investigation and undergoing custodial interrogation by the same police.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to bond of Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties, attending court, and not leaving jurisdiction.

Sharath a P @ Sharu Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 838 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 838 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHARATH A P @ SHARU S/O PARAMESHA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT ANNIGANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-34.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by YASHODA KRISHNAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HASSAN CITY POLICE HASSAN DISTRICT REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-01.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.99/2022 REGISTERED BY HASSN CITY POLICE STATION, HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 395 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HASSAN.

¶16

¶17

CRL.P No. 838 of 2023

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Sri K.C.Pratheep, learned counsel for the

¶21

petitioner and the Sri Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶22

This petition is filed under Section 438 of the

¶23

Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶24

“Wherefore the petitioner in the above petition most humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.99/2022 for the offence punishable U/S 395 of IPC by Hassan City Police Station, Hassan District and pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge AND J.M.F.C. at Hassan in the interest of justice.”

¶25

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶26

The accused was arrested in respect of Crime No.98/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code. A recovery was

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 838 of 2023

¶29

made in a sum of Rs.1,900/- and an iron rod. Based on the voluntary statement given by the accused during custody, one more case came to be registered against the petitioner in Crime No.99/2022 on 11.06.2022 by Hassan city police.

¶30

The petitioner is said to have been enlarged on bail in respect of Crime No.98/2022 on 29.06.2022 and thereafter, the police without making any effort in respect of Crime No.99/2022, filed the charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner is shown as absconding accused in respect of Crime No.99/2022. It is pertinent to note that the police who registered the case in Crime No.98/2022 and Crime No.99/2022 are one and the same police.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K.C.Pratheep contended that after the bail petition came to be rejected in C.Misc.No.1531/2022 on 07.01.2023, petitioner is

¶32

seeking for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of Crime No.99/2022 stating that he is innocent of the offences

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 838 of 2023

¶35

alleged against him and if at all police wanted any custodial interrogation in respect of Crime No.99/2022, nothing prevented the very same police to take the petitioner to custody by taking a body warrant in Crime No.98/2022 and especially when he was in custody upto 29.06.2022 and sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶36

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the grant of bail.

¶37

Perused the material on record meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties.

¶38

On such perusal of the material on record, it is

¶39

seen that the petitioner came to be first arrested in respect of Crime No.98/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC.

¶40

Based on the voluntary statement said to have been given by the petitioner herein, the very same police registered the case in Crime No.99/2022 and without taking the petitioner into custody, filed the charge sheet

¶41

¶42

CRL.P No. 838 of 2023

¶43

as against the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by the learned District Judge while rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶44

Suffice to say that since the petitioner is not available to the investigation agency from the date of registration of the case i.e., on 11.06.2022, this Court is of the considered opinion that directing the petitioner to join the investigation and appear before the jurisdictional court would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(1) The criminal petition is allowed .

¶47

(2) Petitioner is directed to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer on 29.03.2023.

¶48

(3) The Investigating Officer is at liberty to take the petitioner to custody and complete the custodial investigation if any, on the same day before 6.00 p.m.

¶49

¶50

CRL.P No. 838 of 2023

¶51

(4) If any incriminating material is elicited during the custodial interrogation, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file additional/supplementary charge sheet as is contemplated under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. After such custodial interrogation, the petitioner be enlarged on bail, by taking a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum.

¶52

(5) Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

¶53

(6) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper the prosecution evidence or hamper the investigation process in any manner.

¶54

(7) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Hassan District without prior permission.

¶55

Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

JUDGE

¶58

KLY

Sharath a P @ Sharu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharath a P @ Sharu 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

Kiran @ Gobi Kiran @ Kiran Kumar. Y. K. Vs State of Karnataka

Govinda Nayaka Vs State by Vijayanagar Police

Ashiq a Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Harisha Vs the State by

Gowrisha Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandresh Y.G. Vs the State of Karnataka