Allowed

Devaraja P M v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2024CRL.P/3526/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seven accused, untraced for four years after charge sheet filing with summons and NBWs issued, sought anticipatory bail. The court found no custodial interrogation was required and enlarged them on bail on bond with conditions including appearance before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; each petitioner to furnish Rs.2,00,000 bond with two sureties, appear before IO within 15 days

Devaraja P M Vs State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:25416 CRL.P No. 3526 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3526 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DEVARAJA P.M., S/O LATE MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶9

SIDDALINGA S/O LATE MAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶10

SANJU S/O DEVARAJA P M, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

¶11

NAGARAJA P N, S/O LATE NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka

¶13

DYAVAIAH S/O LATE BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶14

SANNAMARI S/O LATE NINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶15

PUTTAMADAIAH S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶16

ALL ARE RESIDING AT PARUVAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE, HAROHALLI HOBLI, HAROHALLI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. AKSHATHA PRASAD M.D., ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25416 CRL.P No. 3526 of 2024

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY HAROHALLI PS, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI .K., HCGP)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.201/2020 REGISTERED BY HAROHALLI POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 341, 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KANAKAPURA.

¶25

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners - accused Nos. 1 to 7 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No. 201/2020 of Harohalli Police Station, pending in C.C.No.950/2020, on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25416 CRL.P No. 3526 of 2024

¶29

Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Smt. Mahalakshmi H R.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

“Whether the petitioners are entitled

¶33

for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶34

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

¶35

R E A S O N S

¶36

The petitioners being accused Nos. 1 to 7 are seeking grant of anticipatory bail on the apprehension of being arrested. The informant lodged the first information against these petitioners alleging commission of offences as stated above. After investigation, the charge sheet is filed. However,

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25416 CRL.P No. 3526 of 2024

¶38

the petitioners were shown as absconding while filing the same on 27.08.2020. The order sheet of the Trial Court discloses that on 05.09.2020, the summons were ordered to be issued to accused Nos. 1 to 7. Later, the summons was re-issued from time to time. On 08.08.2023, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were served but remained un-represented. Accordingly, NBW was issued against them and accused No. 1 and the summons were re-issued against the other accused.

¶39

Now it is the contention of the petitioners that they were not knowing about registration of the case and no effort was made to secure their presence by the Investigating Officer. Four years have already lapsed and no attempt whatsoever appears to have been done to secure the presence of the petitioners before the Trial Court. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioners are required for custodial interrogation. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25416 CRL.P No. 3526 of 2024

¶41

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶42

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition is allowed.

¶45

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his/her arrest in Crime No. 201/2020 of Harohalli Police Station, pending in C.C.No.950/2020.

¶46

The petitioners are 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:-

¶47

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

¶48

b. The petitioners shall not commit similar offences;

¶49

c. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer and the Trial Court as and when required to expedite the trial.

¶50

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

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:25416 CRL.P No. 3526 of 2024

¶53

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 him. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Devaraja P M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devaraja P M 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

Sri. Dhyaneshwara Vs the State of Karantaka

Muniya v Vs State of Karnataka

Saravanan Vs State by Puttenahalli Police Station

Amar Singh Dhami Vs the State of Karnataka

Arjuna D a Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Soma @ Somashekhar Vs State of Karnataka