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



Maruthi @ Polard v/s The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru


    Criminal Petition No. 2054 of 2020

    Decided On, 24 June 2020

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

    For the Petitioner: R. Hanumantharayappa, Advocate. For the Respondent: R.D. Renukaradhya, HCGP.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: This Criminal petition is filed Under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying this court to enlarge the petitioner on bailin Cr.No.158/2018(S.C.No.5016/2019)of Madhugiri P.S., Tumkuru District for the offence punishable under Section 399, 402 of IPC.)

1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.4 in Crime No.158/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of I.P.C.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that, on information to the complainant that six to seven unknown persons were planning to commit dacoit near the hills of Eranna situate on Madhugiri-Pavagada Road near KSRTC Bus Depot by obstructing the general public, who are proceeding by showing the deadly weapons to steal items, mobile phones and cash from them, the complainant rushed to the spot and apprehended accused Nos.1 to 3 and others have fled away from the place. The police have registered the case against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed and now the case is committed to Sessions Court in S.C.No.5016/2019.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, accused Nos.1 to 3 and 6 and 7 are already enlarged on bail and this petitioner is accused No.4. There is no prima facie case against the petitioner and the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and he was apprehended subsequent to registration of the case and thereafter, he has been in custody. The investigation is completed and there is no need for custodial trial of the petitioner and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would contend that the petitioner has involved in four other cases and he is a habitual offender. The learned High Court Government Pleader would further contend that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is a chance of fleeing away from justice and there is a prima facie case against this petitioner.

6. Considering the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, this Court has to examine whether it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

7. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, it is the case of the prosecution that six to seven unknown persons were causing obstruction to the general public proceeding near the hills of Eranna, situate on Madhugiri- Pavagada Road, near KSRTC Bus Depot and intended to commit the offence of dacoit. The averments made in the complaint discloses that accused Nos.1 to 3 were apprehended at the spot and other accused persons escaped from the spot. The petitioner/accused No.4 was arrested subsequently and no recovery is made at the instance of the petitioner. The fact that accused Nos.1 to 3 and 6 and 7 are already enlarged on bail is not in dispute. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in Crime No.54/2018, the petitioner has already been acquitted.

8. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations made in the charge sheet and also the fact that the other accused persons are already enlarged on bail, on the ground of parity, this petitioner also can be enlarged on bail by imposing stringent conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution, since other cases are also registered against the petitioner, which are pending for consideration.

9. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.4 is released on bail in connection with Crime No.158/2018 of Madhugiri Police Station registered for the offences punishable Sections 399 and 402 of I.P.C., subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

(ii) The pe

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

titioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of. (v) The petitioner shall not indulge in committing similar offence in future.
O R