Allowed

Sri Prashanth K R v. State by Gonikoppa P. S.

Karnataka HC28 May 2024CRL.P/4230/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.14, alleged owner of a pickup jeep used in the offence and from whom cash and a mobile phone were recovered, sought regular bail. The court found no evidence he was present at the scene or committed overt acts, no test identification parade was held, and no criminal antecedents, so bail was granted with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions.

Sri Prashanth K R Vs State by Gonikoppa P. S. — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:17797 CRL.P No. 4230 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MAY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4230 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PRASHANTH K.R. S/O LATE K.T. RAMU, 40 YEARS, PICK UP DRIVER, PEGGARE KADU PAISARY, BITTANGALA VILLAGE AND POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 218.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: high court of karnataka

¶11

(BY SRI. SAMEER .S.N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE BY GONIKOPPA P.S. VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 218, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.411/2024 (CR.NO.169/2023) OF GONIKOPPA P.S., KODAGU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 363, 395, 397, 114, 75 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C AT PONNAMPET.

¶17

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

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:17797 CRL.P No. 4230 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner-accused No.14 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 169/2023 of Gonikoppa Police Station, pending in CC.No.411/2024 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Ponnampet, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 363, 395, 397, 114, 75 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Shamjadh.K.

¶21

Heard Sri.Sameer S.N., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M.R.Patil, 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 petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:17797 CRL.P No. 4230 of 2024

¶25

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

¶26

R E A S O N S

¶27

Petitioner being accused No.14 in the above case is seeking anticipatory bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. It is stated that the petitioner was apprehended on 18.12.2023. Informant- Shamjadh.K lodged the first information making serious allegation against various persons for having committed the offences as referred to above. Detailed investigation was undertaken and charge sheet is also filed. Column No.17 discloses the involvement of several accused in commission of the offences. The allegation made against this petitioner is that he is the owner of Bolero pickup Jeep, which was used in commission of the offence. A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with a mobile phone said to have been recovered from the petitioner. On close scrutiny of the charge sheet, it does not disclose that the petitioner was present at the scene of occurrence or had committed any overt acts. Admittedly, no test identification parade was conducted involving the petitioner. It is not the contention of the prosecution that petitioner is required for

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:17797 CRL.P No. 4230 of 2024

¶29

further investigation or for any other purpose. It is also not the contention of the prosecution that petitioner is having criminal antecedent. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement to his right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶30

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petition is allowed.

¶33

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.169/2023 of Gonikoppa Police Station, on obtaining 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 jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶34

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:17797 CRL.P No. 4230 of 2024

¶36

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶37

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶38

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶39

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri Prashanth K R v. State by Gonikoppa P. S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prashanth K R v. State by Gonikoppa 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

Pooja. C Vs State of Karnataka by

Shridhara @ Suman G K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Santhosh Kumar @ Gunda Vs State by

Sri. Gopal Pattanayak Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vishwanatha @ Vishwa Vs State of Karnataka

Noushad Ali M M Vs State of Karanataka by Siddapura Police Station