IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6466/2016 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6467/2016 IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6466/2016 BETWEEN:
Girisha @ Gidda S/o Ramaiah Aged about 40 years R/at Hurudi Village Hanubalu Hobli Sakaleshpur Taluk Hassan District-573 134. ... PETITIONER IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6467/2016 BETWEEN:
Mallappa S/o Thamme Gowda Aged about 60 years R/at Accharadi Village Hanubalu Hobli Sakaleshpur Taluk Hassan District-573 134. ... PETITIONER (By Sri H P Leeladhar, Adv.) AND:
State of Karnataka by Sakleshpur Rural Police Hassan District-573 134. Represented by SPP High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001. ...COMMON RESPONDENT (By Sri B Visweswaraiah, HCGP) These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr. No.153/2016 of Sakaleshpura Rural P.S., Hassan, for the offence P/U/S 379 of IPC.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Crl.P.No.6466/2016 is filed by accused No.2 and Crl.P.No.6467/2016 is filed by accused No.3, both under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.153/2016.
2. Since both the petitions are in respect of the same crime number and common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitioners, they are taken together to dispose of them by this common order.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are, one Munir Ahmed Hamid is the owner of Arachalli estate. On 14.5.2016 he left to Mysore in the evening and came back on 18.5.2016 and while going on rounds in the estate along with his writer Sanjeev at 11.00 a.m. he noticed that two jackfruit trees were cut and removed worth Rs.35,000/-. Accordingly, he has filed a complaint to trace out the culprits and to take action against them. On the basis of the said complaint case was registered for the above said offences.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in both the petitions and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
6. The main allegation in the complaint is that the petitioners have cut jackfruit trees worth Rs.35,000/-. But the petitioners have contended in the bail petitions that false allegations are made against them and that they are innocent of the alleged offences and are not involved in committing the offences. They have also contended that they are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. Further the alleged offence under Section 379 of IPC is also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life and it is triable by the Magistrate Court.
7. Hence, both the petitions are allowed. The respondent-Police are directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.153/2016, subject to the following conditions:
i. Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. They shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. They shall make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when called for and shall cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. They shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp