Allowed

Chagan Alias Sunil, S/O Devaram Pawar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2024CRL.P/101763/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner arrested on suspicion for robbery (Section 395 IPC) in a complaint against unknown persons sought regular bail. Noting no identification parade was conducted and nothing recovered at his instance except cash and an iron rod, the court granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in Crime No.85/2023 on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, subject to witness-protection and attendance conditions.

Chagan Alias Sunil, S/O Devaram Pawar Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9335 CRL.P No. 101763 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101763 OF 2024 (439)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

CHAGAN ALIAS SUNIL S/O. DEVARAM PAWAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK (BAR BENDING), RESIDING AT PARDHI WADA PARTUR, MESAI ROAD, JALANA, MAHARASTRA AND GOSAIWADI, PARDIWADA NEAR SOUTHERN RAILWAY STATION, NASIK ROAD , MAHARASTRA-422 214.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS P.S.I, GOKUL ROAD POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-581 011.

¶10

…RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶12

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

¶13

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN/ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.4 IN C.C.NO.63/2024 (CRIME NO. 85/2023 OF GOKUL ROAD, P.S. HUBBALLI FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC. 395 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC) PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT OF J.M.F.C.-III COURT, HUBBALLI WITH CONDITIONS.

¶15

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

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9335 CRL.P No. 101763 of 2024

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard Sri. Vidyashankar G. Dalwai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

¶19

The petitioner/accused No.4 is seeking regular bail in Crime No.85/2023 of respondent Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 395 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶20

Brief facts of the case:

¶21

It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.09.2023 at about 6:05 hours, one complainant namely Rajanikanth Devappa Doddamani lodged a complaint stating that theft has been committed in his house and some valuable articles have been robbed by the unknown persons. Based on the complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered a case in crime No.85/2023 against 6 to 7 unknown persons. The present petitioner has been arrested on the ground of suspicion and stated to have recovered Rs.4,500/- along with one iron rod from his

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9335 CRL.P No. 101763 of 2024

¶23

possession. He has been remanded to judicial custody on 05.11.2023. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against 7 accused persons.

¶24

It is the submission of the learned counsel for

¶25

the petitioner that the complaint has been lodged by the complainant against unknown persons. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.4 and he has been arrested on suspicion and said to have recovered Rs.4,500/- and one iron rod. However, no identification parade has been conducted to substantiate the alleged robbery or decoity. Therefore, this bail application may be considered and he may be enlarged on bail. Making such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the bail application.

¶26

Per contra, learned HCGP though vehemently opposed the bail of the petitioner in this case, she has admitted that no identification parade has been conducted in this case. However, learned HCGP prays to reject the bail petition on the ground that there are other 5 cases

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9335 CRL.P No. 101763 of 2024

¶28

pending against the petitioner and he is from Maharashtra

¶29

and he may not be available to the case on hand.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the record that initially complaint came to be registered against unknown persons. Nowhere, it is stated that on what ground the petitioner has been arrested and who has informed the jurisdictional police against the petitioner. Moreover, it is admitted fact that they have not conducted any identification parade. Though in the complaint, it is stated that some valuable gold ornaments and articles have been stolen, nothing has been recovered at his instance, except Rs.4,500/- and one iron rod. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it is fit case to grant him bail.

¶31

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petition is allowed.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9335 CRL.P No. 101763 of 2024

¶35

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in

¶36

Crime No.85/2023 of respondent Police Station, on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶37

a) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶38

b) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail.

¶39

In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail

¶40

conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

RKM CT:ANB

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Chagan Alias Sunil, S/O Devaram Pawar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chagan Alias Sunil, S/O Devaram Pawar 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

Govidappa S/O Kenchappa Tamragundi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Hanumanal Gavisiddappa Alias Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Sami Vs the State of Karnataka

Gurappa S/O Shanmukhappa Gudageri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Bharamappa Vs State of Karnataka

Khandoba S/O. Mahadevappa Revadihal Vs the State of Karnataka