w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Lakshmana @ Lakku v/s State of Karnataka, Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru

    Criminal Petition No. 3375 of 2020

    Decided On, 10 August 2020

    At, High Court of Karnataka


    For the Petitioner: Venkatesh, Advocate. For the Respondent: K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP.

Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to, enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.392/2019 registered by Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 397 and 511 of IPC.)

Through Video Conferencing:

1. This is a petition filed by petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.4310/2020 arose in Crime No.392/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC. Petitioner is said to be arraigned as accused No.3 and he has surrendered before the jurisdictional Court as where the charge sheet is laid against him by including his name in the charge sheet. Therefore, the counsel for the accused is seeking for regular bail among the grounds urged therein and even on the ground that accused No.2 in the charge sheet is already been granted bail by the concerned Court by imposing suitable conditions.

2. It is stated in the complaint that on 11.11.2019 at about 7.15 p.m., the complainant while he was proceeding towards his house after work, at that point of time, near Channigappa Industrial Area Gudde, Kaveripura, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore, 3 to 4 persons came near him and asked to hand over all the valuables. Though the complainant did not had any valuables, he denied to give them. One among them, assaulted the complainant on his left stomach and tried to snatch the mobile phone, the complainant screamed for help and at that time, a person came on bike. On seeing him, the accused persons ran away from the spot. The passer by assisted the injured complainant and secured the police and also shifted the injured complainant to the hospital. In pursuance of the act of the persons being arraigned as accused in the charge sheeted case in Crime No.392/2019 which came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 397 and 511 of IPC.

3. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel during the course of his arguments that the accused did not participated in any of the alleged offence, but he is falsely implicated in the case. The complainant has foisted a false complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner has not at all committed any offence and he was not the person associated with other accused. It is further contended that no proper identification parade has been conducted when once the accused was taken into custody. The petitioner has surrendered before the concerned court where the charge sheet was laid and from there onwards he is in judicial custody. The petitioner is permanent abode of Kamakshipalya, Bengaluru and he is ready to abide by any terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court while granting bail to him. These are all the contentions as taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and seeking for bail.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent - State submits that this petitioner is being arraigned as Accused No.3 in C.C.No.4310/2020 arose in Crime No.392/2019. But after investigation by the police, in the charge sheet, Section 511 of IPC is inserted in addition to Section 397 of IPC There are several crimes registered against this petitioner for committing similar offences and the modus operandi relating to the offence which indicate in the charge sheet. If the accused is supposed to be released on bail, certainly he will flee away from justice and it would cause hindrance to the present case and so also, other crimes pending against him. These are all the contentions as taken by learned HCGP and seeks for dismissal of the petition.

5. Having regard to the contentions as taken by learned counsel for the petitioner and so also, learned HCGP for respondent State are concerned, it is relevant to refer to case in crime No.392/2019 which came to be registered by the respondent police against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC. The complaint was filed by one Srinivasa being the victim in the hands of culprits and more over he has sustained some injuries on the left part of his stomach where 3 to 4 persons said to have been attacked him on 11.11.2019 at around 7.15 p.m. while he was returning to the house by walk after attending to his work. But one among the said persons said to be arraigned as accused had insisted him to hand over all the valuable articles despite of not possessing the valuable articles and assaulted him with means of knife and caused bleeding injuries. But the injured said to be the author of the complaint is discharged from the hospital and the Doctor has opined that the injuries sustained by him are simple in nature. This contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and moreover, the co-accused have already been granted bail.

6. It is relevant to refer that there are as many as 6 other cases registered against this accused for the offences punishable under Section 399 and 402 of IPC and so also under Section 363, 366-A, 342, 376 of IPC and Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and the aforesaid cases are in progress and he is also a habitual offender. The Court below in Crl.Misc.No.3116/2020 while dismissing the bail petition filed by this accused has rightly observed that if this accused is released on bail, there is every possibility of his threatening the witnesses, tampering the evidence and absconding from the case and as well as involving in similar type of offence. Therefore, keeping in view the involvement of this accused and so also, the heinous crime committed by him and moreso, it is evident from the report of the investigation officer that there are as many as 6 crimes registered against th

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

is accused in Kamakshipalya Police station for the above said offences, it is said that there is no justifiable ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. If the accused who is an habitual offender is supposed to be released on bail, certainly there shall be an adverse impact on the society. For the reasons stated above and also facts as well as the circumstances of the case, it is opined that the petitioner is not deserving for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The bail petition filed by petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.