Allowed

Srinivasa M S/O Muniswamy v. the State by Kadugodi P S

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2024CRL.P/3172/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court allowed an anticipatory bail petition filed by two accused men charged with assault, robbery, and attempted murder. The petitioners were enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a ₹2 lakh bond, providing sureties, and adhering to conditions regarding witness tampering and court appearance.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest, directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days, and ordered to furnish a bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties.

Srinivasa M S/O Muniswamy Vs the State by Kadugodi P S — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22327 CRL.P No. 3172 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3172 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRINIVASA M., S/O MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BELATHUR COLONY, KADUGODI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 067.

¶10

RANJITH S/O ANNAMALHAI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO. 866, 4^th CROSS, SHANKARAPURA - 560 067, BENGALURU EAST TALUK.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SMT. VIJAYA M.N, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE STATE BY KADUGODI P.S., REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01.

¶16

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.50/2024 REGISTERED BY KADUGODI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324, 341, 504, 307 AND 506 OF IPC NOW THE CASE IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF A.C.J.M., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶17

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

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:22327 CRL.P No. 3172 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No. 50/2024 of Kadugodi Police Station, pending on the file of the learned ACJM, Bangalore Rural, Bangalore Rural District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 504, 307 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Sri. Paramesh V.

¶21

Heard Sri. Vijaya M.N., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Rahul Rai K, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶22

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶23

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶24

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:22327 CRL.P No. 3172 of 2024

¶26

R E A S O N S

¶27

The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 are

¶28

seeking grant of bail. The complainant has filed first information making specific allegations that the accused have chased and dashed the car. When the complainant got down from the car, the 2^nd petitioner has assaulted him with a knife, caused bleeding injuries, robbed his gold chain and flee away from the spot. When the complainant chased him, the 2^nd petitioner has thrown the gold chain at the spot. The material on record discloses that petitioner/accused No.1 has filed a similar complaint registered in Cr.No.49/2024 on 28.01.2024 about two hours earlier to the first information lodged by the complainant in the present case.

¶29

Learned HCGP on instruction submits that the injured in the present case has not sustained any grievous injuries nor he has taken any treatment in the hospital. Even though, the allegations are very serious in nature, the injured has not sustained any grievous injuries and the gold chain said to have been robbed is thrown at the spot and the same has been collected by the complainant. Even I do not find any

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:22327 CRL.P No. 3172 of 2024

¶31

reason to hold that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioners are having any criminal antecedents. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of interest of the prosecution.

¶32

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶33

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed.

¶36

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the

¶37

event of their arrest in Crime No. 50/2024 of Kadugodi Police Station.

¶38

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on their appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge them on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶39

a. The petitioners shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:22327 CRL.P No. 3172 of 2024

¶41

b. The petitioners shall not commit any offences; c. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and

¶42

d. The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶43

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioners, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by them. On satisfaction of the said documents, they may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK

Srinivasa M S/O Muniswamy v. the State by Kadugodi P S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasa M S/O Muniswamy v. the State by Kadugodi P S

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

Manjeshkumar R @ Manjesh @ Avalahalli Manja Vs the State

Subramanian Palani Velan Vs the Superintendent of Central Tax (Gst)

Sri Mehaboob Khan @ Anu Malik Vs the State of Karnataka

Puneeth Kumar. S Vs State by Ijoor Ps

Sri Yaseen Pasha Vs the State by

Harisha Vs the State by Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station