Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/8867/2016 of VIJAY Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA BY on 29 December 2016
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8867/2016 BETWEEN: 1. VIJAY S/O SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 2. VINAY @ CHOCKLET S/O SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 112/C
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29[TH]DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016)
BEFORE
THE HON’ BLE MR.JIUSTICE K.SOMASHEKA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.886/7/2016
BETWEEN:
1.VIJAY|
S/O SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
2.VINAY @ CHOCKLET|
S/O SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 112/C3RD CROSS, GANGOTHRI LAYOUT,T.K. BADAVANE, THONACHIKOPPALU,MYSORE CITY - 4271 104.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI:LAKSHMIKANTH K, ADV)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BYREP BY MANDYA EAST POLICE STATION,BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT BUILDING,BANGALORE - Ol.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION|439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS OWNBAIL IN CR.NO. 184/2016 OF MANDYA EAST P.S., MANDYA_FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS|THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED 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 petitioners-accused underSection 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 184/2016 of Mandya EastPolice Station, Mandya for alleged offence punishable underSection 420 of IPC. Tnerefore counsel for the petitioners isseeking for regular bail as they are arrayed as accused intne alleged crime. Hence, this petition among the groundsurged therein.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned|HCGP for respondent.
3. Learned counsel! for petitioners during the course)of his arguments has contended that accused are innocentpersons and they have not at all committed alleged offence,despite of it they have been implicated in this case on thebasis of complaint filed by the complainant. It is furthercontended that from a reading of the complaint averments, it is clear that there is no ingredients to constitute the)alleged offence against the petitioners. The petitioners-accused are the only earning member in the family ekingout the livelihood of dependants. It is further contended by.tnecounse|lforpetitioners|thatpetitioners|arethepermanent abode of Mysuru City. Accused hails from a.respectable family and nave deep roots in the society andmore over accused are ready to abide any terms andsconditions imposed by this Court. Therefore counsel is—praying for considering the grounds urged in this petitionand for granting bail.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent has taken.the contention that the case in Crime No. 184/2016 for thealleged offence has been registered. It has been recordedDYtnepolicetnat|ontnecomplaintfiledDYthecomplainant, the petitioners have been arrested and theyare in judicial custody since from the date of arrest. Hefurther submits that there are prima facie material againstthe petitioners and hence, they does not deserve for bail.Thereforelearned|HCGPDrayYSforconsideringthestatement of objections and case came to be registered in Criminal Misc. No. 1174/2016 which ts filed before the V_Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya and rejecttne petition.
5. However, keeping in view of the contention|taken by the learned counsel! as well as the learned HCGP,it is relevant to state that subsequent to registration ofcase, it is under investigation and it requires for recording|statement of witnesses and conducting mahazar andcollecting material documents. Allegations made in the)complaint, therefore at this stage does not require detailed|discussion while considering bail petition filed by accused.Learned HCGP submits if accused are released on bailcertainly they would come in the way of the prosecutioncase and destroy evidence. The apprehension of learned|HCGP could be suitably met witn, by imposing suitableconditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution.
5. Therefore for the aforesaid reasons as well as in thecircumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the)accused deserves Dail. Hence, I proceed to pass the)following:
ORDER|
The petition is nereby allowed subject to following|
CONGItIONS:
),*Petitioners-accusedare|released.OnDall|On|execution of a personal bond for a sum ofRs.50,000/- eacn witn one surety for the likesum|to the satisfaction of the|II Aaaitional Civil Judgeand JMFC, Manaya *in Cr.No.184/2016.execution of a personal bond for a sum ofRs.50,000/- eacn witn one surety for the likesum|to the satisfaction of the|II Aaaitional Civil Judgeand JMFC, Manaya *in Cr.No.184/2016.
),,*Petitioners-accused shall co-operate witn the.investigatingofficer.during|theCOUrSeof.investigation. investigatingofficer.during|theCOUrSeof.investigation.
),,,*Petitioners-accused shall not tamper or hnampertne case of the prosecution witnesses.tne case of the prosecution witnesses.
),@*Petitioners-accused shall mark tneir attendance|once in fortnight as per English monthly calendar|between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. for a period of.once in fortnight as per English monthly calendar|between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. for a period of.
three montns.
*Correction carried out vide Court order dated 04.01.2018
)@*Petitioners-accused shall not indulge in criminal|
activities.
)@,*If the Petitioners-accused violates any of the|above|conditions,the.Dall|grantedSnall|above|conditions,the.Dall|grantedSnall|
automatically stands seized.
*pgn/-|
Sd/-.JUDGE —