Mr. M. Seetharama Vs State of Karnataka

MR. M. SEETHARAMA, S/O VASU SALIAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.1-208, KELEMBIRI HOUSE, KAIMANA POST, BELANDOOR VILLAGE, KADABA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 202.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY Ms.NAZEEFA M.MULLA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS BANTWAL RURAL POLICE STATION, REP. BY HIGH COURT SPP, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN S.C.NO.131/2024 DATED 23.11.2024 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., AT MANGAURU UNDER FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.3/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 395, 397, 411 OF IPC 1860 BY BANTWAL RURAL POLICE, ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:1890 CRL.P No. 13695 of 2024

¶19

MANGALURU HAS DISMISSED THE BAIL PETITION ON 23.11.2024 IN S.C.NO.131/2024.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner-accused No.5 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in Crime No.3/2024 of Bantwala Rural Police Station, pending in S.C.No.131/2024 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 411 of IPC, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant, Marita Synthiya Pinto.

¶24

Heard Ms.Nazeefa M.Mulla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1890 CRL.P No. 13695 of 2024

¶27

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶28

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

¶29

R E A S O N S

¶30

Petitioner-accused No.5 was apprehended on 21.01.2024 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Initially, FIR came to be registered against unknown persons. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 7 for the aforesaid offences.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no recovery of any incriminating materials at the instance of the petitioner, nor test identification parade was conducted to identify the petitioner. The materials on record reveal that accused Nos.1 to 4 were identified by the victim in the test identification parade, but, accused No.5 was not subjected to the said test. It is stated that witnesses have identified the petitioner in the police station.

¶32

It is the contention of the prosecution that the valuables robbed were sold to accused No.7 from whom it was

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:1890 CRL.P No. 13695 of 2024

¶35

recovered. Accused No.6 is already enlarged on bail. Petitioner along with accused No.4 had approached this Court in CRL.P.No.7807/2024 and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.09.2024, on the ground that petitioner was having criminal antecedents in Crime No.66/2023, registered for offences punishable under the provisions of POCSO Act. It is stated that now the matter is at the stage of hearing before charge.

¶36

However, it is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation, except to ensure his presence before the Trial Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to conditions, which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution.

¶37

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

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition is allowed.

¶40

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.03/2024 of Bantwala Rural Police Station, pending in

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:1890 CRL.P No. 13695 of 2024

¶43

pending in S.C.No.131/2024 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru,, 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:

¶44

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶50

AV/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5

Mr. M. Seetharama v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. M. Seetharama v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraju @ Naga Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Joginder Singh Lather Vs Ibm India Pvt. Ltd.

Sri a Maruthi Kumar Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr P C Hassainar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Pascal Mazurier Vs Mrs. Suja Jones Mazurier