Allowed

Goutham @ Gowthu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2023CRL.P/854/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail in a case involving multiple IPC offences. The court allowed the petition, directing the petitioner to pay a bond amount in installments, execute a fresh bond with sureties, and adhere to strict conditions including non-tampering and regular attendance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to payment of Rs. 50,000 bond in installments, execution of fresh Rs. 1,00,000 bond with sureties, and strict conditions against tampering and for regular attendanc

Goutham @ Gowthu Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 854 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 854 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

GOUTHAM @ GOWTHU S/O NAGESH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/A H.NO.4-165/43(3) DURGA NILAYA BEHIND DOSTH BUS STAND AKASHABAVANA, KAVOOR MANGALURU-575 001

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALURU SOUTH POLICE STATION REP BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S. HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.236/2018 OF MANGALORE SOUTH P.S. MANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 364A, 342, 323, 324, 395, 397, 386, 355, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE IN S.C.NO. 175/2021 AND ETC.

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 854 of 2023

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri. Rajashekar S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶23

The present petition is filed under Sections 143, 147, 148, 364A, 342, 323, 324, 395, 397, 386, 355, 504, 506, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) with the following prayer:

¶24

“Wherefore, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this petition and enlarge the petitioner on bail in S.C.No.175/2021 registered for the offences punishable under 143, 147, 148, 364(A), 342 323, 324, 395, 397, 386, 355, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC by Mangaluru South Police Station. Mangaluru pursuant to registering of Crime No.263/2018 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper

¶25

¶26

CRL.P No. 854 of 2023

¶27

under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest, equity and law .”

¶28

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶29

A case came to be registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.263/2018, on 06.12.2018 by Mangalore South Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 364A, 342, 323, 324, 395, 397, 366, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')

¶30

The accused was arrested and was enlarged on bail with conditions. Subsequently, charge sheet came to be filed and learned Magistrate took cognizance and as the offences alleged against the petitioner and others were exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, after compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the matter was committed to the District Court.

¶31

Before the District Court, the petitioner failed to appear and proceed with the case. Warrant issued by the Court was also not executed and therefore, the petitioner was arrested, subsequently on 17.08.2022 in pursuance of non-bailable warrant executed. Later on, the petitioner filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions

¶32

¶33

CRL.P No. 854 of 2023

¶34

Court in S.C. No.175/2021. Vide order dated 21.10.2022, the said application was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

After hearing the matter for sometime Sri.Rajashekar.S., learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo stating that the petitioner could not appear before the Sessions Court on account of improper communication from his counsel. In the absence of service of summons, he sought for granting of bail subject to payment of bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) which has been automatically forfeited by operation of law. Further he also seeks installment for payment of the bond amount.

¶36

Having taken note of the fact that the accused/petitioner was on bail in the very same case and later on, he has not appeared before the Court despite being issued non-bailable warrant and ultimately on 17.08.2022, this Court is of the considered opinion that directing the petitioner to pay the bond amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) which was the condition imposed while granting the bail earlier and directing him to execute a fresh bond for a sum of

¶37

¶38

CRL.P No. 854 of 2023

¶39

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with surety would meet the ends of justice. Further, the apprehension of the prosecution in securing the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court can be met by imposing suitable and stringent conditions. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶42

Petitioner-accused shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) which is the bond amount to be paid in five equal installments and release order be made after the deposit of first installment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and remaining four installments to be paid within three months.

¶43

Petitioner shall execute a fresh bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶44

Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶45

Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

¶46

¶47

CRL.P No. 854 of 2023

¶48

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

¶49

Ordered accordingly.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

GVP

Goutham @ Gowthu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goutham @ Gowthu 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

Smt Kempamma Vs Smt Shivarathnamma

Channakeshavaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Dhanraj Vs Smt. Santhoshi Latha Devi

Rohith @ Sai Vs State of Karnataka

Venkatesh G Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhaskar B R Vs State by