CRL.P/8957/2016 of G V PANIVENKATARAM @ PANI Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 29 December 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29[‘T]DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010.

4OR4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHB KAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8957/2016

BRIWHEN:

G.V.PANIVENKATARAM @ PANI9/O VENUGOPALAGED ABOUT 21 YEARSRESIDING AT NO.92/2, 2[ND]MAIN ROADNKAR MARUTHI HOSPITAL|SHESHADHRIPURAM,BANGALORE -560 O20._.. PHTTTIONE

(BY SRI JAYASIMHA K.P. ADV.,)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKABY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR,SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION,|BANGALORE CITY.RBEPRBSEBENTBD BY STAPUBLIC PROSBCUTOR.HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKABANGALORE -Ol... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION439 CR. P. C PRAYING TO BKNLARGE THER PETITINER ON BAIIN|CR.NO.277/2016OF.SOLADBKBVANAHALLP.d.,|BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 397 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERSTHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORD BE R

This is a petition filed under Section 439 ofCr.P.C.Thepetitioner1SACCUSECNo.3.Therespondent-policehave|registeredaCASE1nNCr.No.277/2016 in respect of the offence punishable|under Section 397 of [PC.

2 |Heard.learnedcounsel forthepetitioner/accused|andlearnedHCGP|fortherespondent/ police.

3.|The complaint allegations are that the|accused along with other persons entered the house|of the complainant, threatened him by showing knifeand extorted his valuables, approximately amounting|to Rs.2,86,000/-. |

4Learnedcounselfor.the012-2-3419$ACCUSECduringtheCOUTSEOT hisarguments)contended that the petitioner-accused is an innocent|person and he has been talsely implicated in the alleged offence. The petitioner is in judicial custody|since the date oft his arrest. He is the bread winner otthe family and he is ready to abide by any terms and|conditions. Further, he submitted that since the |co-accused against whom the allegations are identicalhave been enlarged on bail by this Court in|Crl.P.No.8271/2016dated11.12.2016andCrl.P.No.8228/2016 dated 7.12.2016, this petitioner|also be enlarged on bail on the principles of parity, byconsidering the grounds urged in the petition.

Oo. Learned HCGP opposes the bail petitioncontending that there are|prima _ facimaterials|against the accused for the alleged offences. Hence,accused does not deserve bail.

6. Having regard to the submissions made bylearned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGBP,it is relevant to consider that on the basis of a complaint lodged, a case has been registered against|the accused for the offence punishable under Section|397 of IPC. However, subsequent to registration ofthe case, it is under investigation and it requires|recording statement of witnesses and_ collectingmaterial documents. Therefore, at this. stage,|allegations made in the complaint do not require|detailed discussion while considering bail petition|filed by the accused. Further, the co-accused have|already been enlarged on bail by this Court thereis |no impediment to allow this petition by imposing|appropriate conditions to safeguard the interest ofthe prosecution.

¢. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well|as in the circumstances, I am of the considered|opinion that the accused deserves bail. Hence, ||proceed to pass the following: