Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/8861/2015 of MAHESH Vs STATE BY KARNATAKA on 31 December 2015
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8861 OF 2015 BETWEEN: MAHESH S/O LATE L. KRISHNAJI RAO AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS TROLLEY MAN IN RAILWAY DEPARTMENT, MYSORE R/AT NO.55/B, RAILWAY QUARTERS
IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATEKED THIS THE [ST]DAY OF DBECBEMBER 2015
BEKORE,
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR|
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8861 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
MAHESH0/O LATE L. KRISHNAJI RAOAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSTROLLEY MAN IN RAILWAY|DEPARTMENT, MYSORE|R/AT NO.55/B,RAILWAY QUARTERSLOKO COLONYMYSORE — 570 O21
... PETTTION
(BY SRI.V LAKSHMI KANTHA RAO, ADV.)
AND:
STATEH BY KARNATAKABY SHIMOGA RURAL CIRCLESHIMOGA|REPRESENTED BY|PUBLIC PROSECU TORHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKABANGALORE — 560 OO].
(BY SRI.K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
~.. RESPONDE
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION [IS FILED UNDER SKCTION439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO EBENLARGE THE PETITIONEON BAIL IN CR. NO. 5957/2015 OF SHIVAMOGGA RURALP.S., SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S|420 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,THR COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner undersection 439 Cr.P.C seeking for his release on bail inCrime No.557/2015 for the offences punishable undersection 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC of Shivamogga RuralPolice Station.
oD Case of the prosecution is that, on the basis—
of the complaint lodged by one P.B Mallappa on16.10.2015, the police have registered a case in CrimeNo.99/7/2015 against the petitioner and others. In thecomplaint it is alleged that P.B. Mallappa in order tosecure job to his son paid a sum of Rs.7.00 lakhs to Yeshwanthappa, who is accused No.1. Accused No.1 incollusion with other accused have received the amount|in the guise of getting job in Railway Department. Thepetitioner being accused No.3 working in the saidrailway department is also involved in the case andhence registered the case against him and arrayed asaccused No.3. The petitioner has filed the petitionunder section 439 of Cr.P.C., before the Sessions Judge,and the said application came to be rejected by thesessions Judge. Hence this petition. |
3. |sri. V. Lakshmikantha Rao, learned counselappearingfor.the.petitionercontentedthat|thepetitioner is not at all involved in any of the offencesalleged against him. He is working as a Group ‘D’employee in the Railway department at Mysuru. He hasnot assured anybody to get the appointment in theRailways. He has not received any amount fromYeshwanthappa. In the complaint also his name is not mentioned. The Police have falsely implicated thepetitioner at the instance of the complainant. Hence herequested this court to grant bail.|
4The learned Government Pleader appeared|for the respondent opposed for grant of bail on theeround that the petitioner is also involved in the saidrocket of getting job to the needy persons. At this stage,if the petitioner is granted with bail, he is likely totamper with the prosecution witnesses and sought fordismissal ot the same.
5. |I have carefully considered the arguments.addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner aswell as learned HCGP for the respondent and also gonethrough the copy of the complaint, FIR and the orderpassed by the Trial Court.
6. Admittedly, the complaint was lodged by one P.B. Mallappa against Yeshwanthappa who had assured that he would secure appointment to the son of.complainant as Group ‘D’ employees in the RailwayDepartment and took sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from thecomplainant. However, he neither returned the saidamount nor got the appointment to his son. In view ofthat he filed the complaint. In the complaint, thispetitioner’s name is not mentioned. There is noallegation made against this petitioner. However, in theFIR, name of the petitioner was included on the groundthat he was a distant relative of Yeshwanthappa. No.document has been placed to show that he was involvedin any of the case for the offence punishable underSection 420 read with 34 oft IPC.
[|Taking into consideration the facts of thecase, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to grantbail. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
8. |TheCriminalpetition1S.allowed.Thepetitioner — accused is ordered to be released on bail forthe offences alleged in Crime No.597/7/2015 subject tthe following conditions.
i) The petitioner shall execute the personalbond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fiftythousand only), with two sureties for thelikesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
(11) Thepetitionershallmakehimself.available{Orinterrogationby|the.investigating officer, aS and when he isrequired.
(11) The petitioner shall not directly or)indirectly induce threat to any personacquainted with the facts of the case.
(iv) The petitioner shall attend the Court as)and when he is directed.
Ii the petitioner violates any one of the aboveconditions imposed on him, prosecution is at liberty toseek cancellation of bail from the Concerned Sessions|Court.
Sd/-|
JUDGE.
HR|