Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Jayanth Mandal @ Jayanth @ Janthu vs Rahasa Rai B

High Court Of Karnataka|11 December, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8598/2017 BETWEEN:
JAYANTH MANDAL @ JAYANTH @ JANTHU S/O BADDHANATH MANDAL AGED 27 YEARS, R/AT JAMNAGAR VILLAGE & POST RAJMAHAL P.S., SAHEBGANJ DISTRICT JHARKAND STATE-816109 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDRAHASA RAI B., ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BOMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.) THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.321/2017 OF BOMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU AND IN C.C.NO.23026/2017 ON THE FILE OF C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B), 380, 414 AND 457 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.7 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 457 of IPC. Subsequently, the offence under Section 120B and 414 of IPC came to be inserted in the case, registered in respondent – police station in Crime No.321/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.7 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Looking to the complaint averments, one Devaram S/o Lacharam is the complainant in this case wherein he has stated that on 29.06.2017, they closed the jewelry shop at 09.30 p.m., and on the next day, when they opened the shop at 08.30 am., they saw that from the backside of the shop, some unknown persons by breaking the wall had gained entrance and looted the gold and silver ornaments. On the basis of the said complaint, firstly FIR came to be registered under Sections 380 and 457 of IPC. Subsequently, the offence under Section 120B and 414 of IPC came to be inserted. Prosecution material goes to show that prima facie at this stage, so far as committing theft of gold and silver articles are concerned, allegations are against accused Nos.1 to 6. So far as present petitioner is concerned, it is contended that he facilitated other accused in selling gold and silver ornaments to others. Therefore, the alleged offence as against the present petitioner is under Section 414 of IPC. The petitioner contended that he is innocent and not involved in the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated and he is ready to be abide by the conditions to be imposed by the Court.
4. This petition is under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail. From the date of arrest, The petitioner/accused No.7 is in custody. Looking to the prosecution material, there is a recovery of amount of Rs.3400/- from the present petitioner, alleged to be the commission received for the sale of jewels and silver ornaments. Therefore, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner/Accused No.7.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.7 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.321/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE ln
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Jayanth Mandal @ Jayanth @ Janthu vs Rahasa Rai B

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
11 December, 2017
Judges
  • Budihal R B