Allowed

Gunda Alias Ganesh S/O. Dharma, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2024CRL.P/101725/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition seeking anticipatory bail for an accused arraigned as No. 6 in a dacoity case involving alleged robbery of a goldsmith carrying money for gold purchase. The High Court granted bail finding ambiguities in the FIR regarding the amount involved and doubtful nature of recovered funds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety subject to conditions of appearance, cooperation, and non-tampering.

Gunda Alias Ganesh S/O. Dharma, Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10645 CRL.P No. 101725 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101725 OF 2024 (438-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GUNDA ALIAS GANESH S/O. DHARMA, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: DRIVING, R/O: YALLAMMA GUDDA KARAGAL, TQ: SAGAR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA-577421

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GANAPATI M BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS P.S.I., RANEBENNUR RURAL POLICE STATION, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011

¶12

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

¶13

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R PATIL, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN/ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.6 IN CC NO.753/2024 (CRIME NO.24/2024 OF RANEBENNUR RURAL P.S) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 394, 395, 120-B, R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT OF PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10645 CRL.P No. 101725 of 2024

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri. Ganapati M Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶22

The petitioner/accused No.6 is seeking

¶23

anticipatory bail in Crime No.24/2024 of respondent Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 395, 120-B r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶24

Brief facts of the case:

¶25

It is the case of the prosecution that the complaint came to be registered by the complainant stating that he was working as Goldsmith at Janardhana Gold Jewellery shop. His owner namely Janardhana used to give money to him to purchase gold ingots from Mangaluru. Likewise, on 20.01.2024, he was asked to bring gold ingots at Mangaluru and he was paid Rs.10,00,000/-. The complainant boarded the bus and

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10645 CRL.P No. 101725 of 2024

¶27

started his journey from Davangere. When the bus reached Chalageri around 12.00 in the mid night, the driver of the bus stopped the bus at Shivanandi Dabha. The other inmates of the bus got down and went to Dhaba, however, he was staying in the bus as he is having bag contained amount. One person boarded the bus by wearing monkey cap and started searching something in the bus and thereafter, immediately saw the bag of the complainant and trying to snatch the bag by saying that it was his bag. The complainant did not give the bag and resisted. By that time, other two persons entered into the bus and snatched the bag and fled away from the spot.

¶28

The complainant kept quite till driver and conductor come to the bus and narrated the incident and also informed the owner and thereafter lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police. The jurisdictional police have registered a case in crime No.24/2024 and conducting investigation. During investigation, the complainant gave his further statement on 05.02.2024. In

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10645 CRL.P No. 101725 of 2024

¶30

the said further statement, the complainant disclosed that the amount which he had lost in the said incident was Rs.30,00,000/-. However, in order to avoid the income tax, he mentioned only Rs.10,00,000/-. Based on the said further statement and also after investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

¶31

It is the submission of the learned counsel for

¶32

the petitioner that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.6. Nowhere, it is stated that he was present at the scene of occurrence. As per the version of complainant, there were three persons assaulted him and snatched the bag. However, the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.6. Therefore, he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶33

Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently opposed the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and further submitted that the petitioner has committed an offence as stated in the charge sheet. The petitioner

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10645 CRL.P No. 101725 of 2024

¶35

was working as one of the associates of the gang. All the accused have committed dacoity. The amount of Rs.16,50,000/- has been recovered at the instance of one of the accused. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant bail to any of the accused. Making such submission, learned HCGP prays to dismiss the petition.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the record that the complainant is stated to have been traveling in the bus to Mangaluru as per the direction of his master to purchase the gold ingots at Mangaluru along with money. The complainant in his complaint has stated that he was traveling along with Rs.10,00,000/-. However, in his further statement, he made a statement that he was traveling along with Rs.30,00,000/-. There is an ambiguity in respect of the amount of which the complainant was traveling.

¶37

Having considered the said ambiguity, the

¶38

recovery of amount of Rs.16,50,000/- at the instance of

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10645 CRL.P No. 101725 of 2024

¶40

accused appears to be doubtful. Therefore, it is

¶41

appropriate to grant him bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶42

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition is allowed.

¶45

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the

¶46

event of his arrest in Crime No. 24/2024 of the respondent-police, on executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with one surety

¶47

for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional police, subject to the following conditions:

¶48

a) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional police station within one month from today.

¶49

b) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and when it is required.

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10645 CRL.P No. 101725 of 2024

¶51

c) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the

¶52

proceedings of the Court.

¶53

d) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial

¶54

Court on all dates of hearing without fail.

¶55

In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Gunda Alias Ganesh S/O. Dharma, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunda Alias Ganesh S/O. Dharma, 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

Babusab S/O Mahammadsab Bhagali Vs the State of Karnataka Represented by the P.S.I

Sanju S/O Mallappa Dyamgol Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sunitha W/O. Vadike Nagendra Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijaya Venkatesh Kamat Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Saifali Alias Hallu S/O Mehabubsab Bambay Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sadashiva Rayappa Maralingannavar S/O Late Sri Rayappa Maralingannavar Vs the State of Karnataka