Allowed

Aanchal Alias Aanchal Varma D/O Subodh Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024CRL.P/102599/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed joint bail petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for two female accused involved in a kidnapping and robbery case. The Court held that their absence from the spot and female status warranted bail subject to surety, cooperation, and restrictions on movement.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on execution of personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- each with one surety, cooperation with police investigation, no tampering with witnesses, stay in Belagavi district, and prior permission fo

Aanchal Alias Aanchal Varma D/O Subodh Kumar Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12922 CRL.P No. 102599 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102592 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102599 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102592 OF 2024

¶6

IN CRL.P NO.102599/2024 BETWEEN:

¶7

AANCHAL ALIAS AANCHAL VARMA D/O. SUBODH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION. BEAUTICIAN, R/AT. D 1/341, STREET NO.2, ASHOK NAGAR, NAND NAGRI, NORTH - EAST DELHI, DELHI 110093.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH G., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KITTUR P S, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD 580011.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.131/2024 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 341, 342, 395 OF THE IPC WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KITTUR, BELAGAVI DISTRICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶17

IN CRL.P NO.102592/2024 BETWEEN:

¶18

MISS SULOCHANA D/O BAJRANGLAL TAWANIYA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12922 CRL.P No. 102599 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102592 of 2024

¶21

R/O WARD NO. 13. KHARIYA KUA KE PASS, KALOO AT KALOO TQ LUNKARANSAR DIST. BIKANER, RAJASTHAN STATE NOW AT HINDALAGA CENTRAL PRISON BELAGAVI.

¶22

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH S. GUDIHINDIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ASHOK R. KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (KITTUR P.S) BY IT’S STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT BENCH PREMISES, DHARWAD - 580 001.

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.6 ON BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN KITTUR PS CR.NO.131/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 341, 342 AND 395 OF IPC ON THE PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KITTUR.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Criminal Petition No.102599/2024 is filed by accused No.4 and Criminal Petition No.102592/2024 is filed by accused No.6. Both petitions are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail in Kittur Police Station Crime

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12922 CRL.P No. 102599 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102592 of 2024

¶33

No.131/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for short).

¶34

One Amit Ashok Periwal has filed the complaint stating that 8-10 days ago, when he had been to Jaipur, his friend Milan had requested that he is in urgent need of Rs.10,00,000/- and as such he informed his workers to go to Shivamogga and give Rs.10,00,000/- to Milan. On 30.06.2024 at about 6:00 am, Chandanath Rameshwar Sidh and Sunil Rajkumar Prajapath took Rs.10,00,000/- and were traveling in a Tata Nexon Car bearing No.KA.17.MA.1992 belonging to one Yakshit Jain to handover the said cash to Milan. Around 7:00 am, Chandrakant Sidh called the complainant and informed that he was driving the said vehicle and Sunil Rajkumar Prajapath was sitting beside him. When they were traveling on Belagavi-Dharwad Highway, after crossing Kittur, one white colour Innova Crysta overtook them, blocked their way and

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12922 CRL.P No. 102599 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102592 of 2024

¶36

stopped the vehicle, thereafter, 4 people got down from the said Innova car, approached towards their vehicle and forcibly got opened the doors, punched them and tied their hands and made them to sit in the second row of the car and drove both the cars to the service road and forcibly took cash of Rs.10,00,000/- and they did not see the number of the car properly. The complainant returned from Jaipur on 01.07.2024 and enquired both the persons about the incident and after consulting his friends, he filed the complaint to the police. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.131/2024 of Kittur Police Station against six unknown persons for the offences under Sections 341, 342 and 395 of IPC. Accused No.4 came to be arrested on 15.07.2024 and accused No.6 came to be arrested on 17.07.2024 and they are in judicial custody. They filed bail applications before the Sessions Court and the same came to be rejected.

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12922 CRL.P No. 102599 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102592 of 2024

¶38

Therefore, accused Nos.4 and 6 are before this Court seeking bail.

¶39

Heard the arguments of the learned

¶40

counsel appearing for accused Nos.4, the learned counsel appearing for accused No.6 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondentState.

¶41

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would contend that the alleged incident has occurred on 30.06.2024 and complaint has been filed on 03.07.2024 and there is delay in filing the complaint. Accused No.4 was not present on the spot at the time of the incident and the allegations against her is that, she paid diesel bill by using her PhonePe and received Rs.5,00,000/- from accused No.1 and transferred the same to one Bank account of Prime Helmet at the request of accused No.1. He contends that accused No.4 is a woman and therefore she is entitled for grant of bail, as she is

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12922 CRL.P No. 102599 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102592 of 2024

¶43

not required for further investigation. He contends that accused person being resident of another State is not ground to reject bail. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶44

Learned counsel for accused No.6 contends that there is a delay in filing the complaint. Even though the complainant returned from Jaipur on 01.07.024, he filed the complaint on 03.07.2024. Accused No.6 was not present at the spot at the time of the incident. The allegations against accused No.6 is that she received information from accused No.3, a co-worker under the complainant, and she informed the same to accused No.1 regarding carrying of cash on the date of the incident. The offence under Section 395 of IPC is not attracted as the persons, who robbed are 4 persons and the persons who were carrying cash, which was robbed, had not filed any complaint even though the police station is on the way from the spot to Belagavi. The

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12922 CRL.P No. 102599 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102592 of 2024

¶46

mobile of accused No.6 has been seized. Accused No.6 is ready to reside in Belagavi and give regular attendance to Police Station along with her father. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶47

Learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that investigation is in progress. Serious allegations are against accused Nos.4 and 6. Totally 10 accused are involved in the commission of offence. Out of them, 8 are arrested. Accused No.6 got information from accused No.3 regarding carrying of cash and she in turn informed the same to accused No.1. Accused No.4 is having relationship with accused No.1 and she made payment of diesel and received cash of Rs.5,00,000/- from accused No.1 and booked flight ticket for accused No.1 to Katmandu. The petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 have major role in the commission of offences. If they are granted bail, there are chances of they tampering the investigation. The accused persons

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12922 CRL.P No. 102599 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102592 of 2024

¶49

are residents of Rajasthan and the main accused are alleged to have attacked the police at the time of their arrest and they are habitual offenders. With this, she prayed to reject the petitions.

¶50

Having heard the learned counsel, the Court has perused the FIR, complaint, remand applications and other material placed on record. As per the averments of the complaint, when Chandanath Rameshwar Sidh and Sunil Rajkumar Prajapath were carrying cash of Rs.10,00,000/- in a car, another car i.e. Innova Crysta overtook them and 4 persons got down from the said Innova car and forcibly made these persons to sit on the back seat of the car and drove the cars on the service road and robbed Rs.10,00,000/-. Considering the said allegations, the petitioner/accused Nos.4 and 6 were not present on the spot at the time of the incident.

¶51

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12922 CRL.P No. 102599 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102592 of 2024

¶52

The accusation against accused No.4 is that she made diesel payment through her PhonePe and received Rs.5,00,000/- from accused No.1 and booked air ticket for him to Katmandu. Accused No.4 came to be arrested on 15.07.2024 and was remanded to police custody and after investigation, she is now in judicial custody.

¶53

The accusation against accused No.6 is that he got information from accused No.3, who is the co-worker under the complainant reading carrying of cash in the car by two persons and in turn she informed the same to accused No.1. Accused No.6 is arrested on 17.07.2024 and she was investigated under police custody and her mobile has been seized. There is no allegation of accused Nos.4 and 6 being present on the spot at the time of incident. Both the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 are women and they are entitled to special privilege under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. As the investigation so far as accused Nos.4 and 6 is

¶54

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12922 CRL.P No. 102599 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102592 of 2024

¶55

over, now they are remanded to judicial custody. Merely because the petitioners are residents of the State of Rajasthan, is not a ground to reject their bail petitions.

¶56

Considering all these aspects, accused

¶57

Nos.4 and 6 have made out grounds for grant of bail subject to conditions.

¶58

In the result, the following

¶59

ORDER

¶60

Both the petitions are allowed. The

¶61

petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 are granted bail in

¶62

Kittur Police Station Crime No.131/2024 subject to the following conditions:

¶63

i. The petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶64

11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12922 CRL.P No. 102599 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102592 of 2024

¶65

ii. The petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 shall co-operate with the police in further investigation;

¶66

iii. The petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses;

¶67

iv. The petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 shall stay in Belagavi district and attend the jurisdictional police on every Sunday till filing of final report; and

¶68

v. The petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 shall not leave the country-India without prior permission of the court concerned.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶71

kmv

¶72

CT:ANB

Aanchal Alias Aanchal Varma D/O Subodh Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aanchal Alias Aanchal Varma D/O Subodh Kumar 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

Hamida W/O Liyakatali Inamdar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Muzammil M.a., S/O M Abdul Zahid Vs the State of Karnataka

Lalitha Deepti W/O. Suresh Thumpati Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Sharanagouda Alias Sharanabasanagouda Vs the State of Karnataka

Manuja K D/O. Kenchappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Amogh S/O Jagadish Kudare Vs the State of Karnataka