Ladalya Ram Bhosale, Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION FILED IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED NO.3 BY GRANTING REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.31/2017 REGISTERED BY THE AMEENGAD POLICE STATION, DIST. BAGALKOTE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.457, 380, 411 AND 413 OF IPC, PENDING IN THE COURT OF II ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE, (S.C.NO.73/2019), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶19

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8235 CRL.P No. 102005 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶25

Heard Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Kirtilata Patil., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State.

¶26

The petitioner/accused No.3 has filed this

¶27

petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, [483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] praying to grant bail in S.C.No.73/2019, pending on the file of learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote in connection with Ameengad P.S. Crime No.31/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380, 411 and 413 of Indian Penal Code.

¶28

Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:

¶29

On 22.02.2017, accused No.1 to 3 had broke open the

¶30

door of the house of the first informant and committed theft of gold ornaments weighing 110 grams, silver

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8235 CRL.P No. 102005 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ornaments weighing 42 grams and cash of Rs.20,000/-. Further, accused No.1 to 3 committed theft of 30 grams gold, 8 grams of silver ornaments and cash of Rs.15,000/from the house of witness by name Dadapeer Bashasab Tangadgi. Hence, the first informant a lodged complaint, which led to registration of FIR and initiation of investigation.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent; he has not committed any offence; he has been falsely implicated in the case and nothing has been recovered from this petitioner. The Coordinate Bench of this Court granted bail in favour of accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.103213/2023 and this petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court. With these grounds, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶35

Per contra , learned High Court Government

¶36

Pleader contended that there is prima-facie case against

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8235 CRL.P No. 102005 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

the petitioner. The petitioner is a resident of Maharashtra State and is a habitual offender. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is a chance of his absconding and he will not be available for trial. Hence, prayed for rejection of the petition.

¶40

Perused the material available on record, it appears that accused Nos.1 to 3 committed theft of gold and silver articles in the house of first informant and in the house of one Dadapeer Bashasab Tangadgi. In this case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted bail in favour of accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.103213/2023 dated 12.12.2023.

¶41

As per the charge-sheet material, it appears that during the course of investigation, nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner-accused No.3. Further, the mere allegation that the petitioner hails from Maharashtra State is not a ground to reject the bail petition. Insofar as the contention of learned HCGP with

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8235 CRL.P No. 102005 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

regard to petitioner-accused No.3 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in another case the petitioner has been convicted, wherein, the jurisdictional Court had set-off the period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner by invoking Section

¶45

428 of Cr.P.C. This aspect is not disputed by the learned HCGP. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

¶46

Considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioner; his status in the locality, chances of petitioner absconding or fleeing away from justice if released on bail and the fact that accused No.1 is already been enlarged on bail, on the ground of parity also, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail by imposing certain conditions. Hence, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, is allowed.

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8235 CRL.P No. 102005 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in

¶52

S.C.No.73/2019, pending on the file of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote in connection with Ameengad P.S. Crime No.31/2017, on he executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with

¶53

two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial

¶54

Court subject to following conditions;

¶55

i) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court in any manner;

¶56

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

¶57

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶58

AM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Ladalya Ram Bhosale, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ladalya Ram Bhosale, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Manjunath S/O Chandappa Marewad Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Honnur Mastal Ali S/O Late Yusuf Sab Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Y Ravikumar S/O Y Leela Prasad Vs Sri D Noor Sab S/O. D. Mohammed Sab

Sri. Sunil S/O. Basavaraj Sutar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivagouda Basagouda Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Maruti Alias Maruteppa S/O. Shivappa Bochanahalli Vs State of Karnataka