IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9456 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Khandya Praveen @ Praveen S/o Keshava Murthy, Aged about 36 years, R/at Khandya Village and Post, Chikkamagaluru District – 577101. ...Petitioner (By Smt.Pramila Nesargi, Sr. counsel for Sri.G.Chandrashekharaiah, Adv.) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By Basavanahalli Police, Chikkamagaluru, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.132/2016(S.C.No.34/2018) of Basavanahalli Police Station, Chikkamagaluru District for the offences punishable under Sections 364(a), 395, 386, 324, 342, 506, 120B read with 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on regular bail in SC No.34/2018 (Crime No.132/2016) of Basavanahalli Police Station pending on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Chikkamagalur for the offences punishable under Sections 364(a), 395, 386, 324, 342, 506, 120(B) read with 149 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned senior counsel Smt.Pramila Nesargi for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 28.06.2016 at about 2.00 a.m., the complainant was about to open the gate of his house to park his vehicle. At that time, one Abhijith and six others came in a black Scorpio vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA-20/N-3659 and surrounded and thereafter kidnapped him in their car and he was also threatened not to shout and if he shouts, they will kill him. It is further alleged that the persons who were there in the car were holding deadly weapons and they also forcibly took his car key and out of them two persons took away the car and they also switched off his mobile and thereafter started proceeding to Bengaluru and thereafter took him to a go-down at Bengaluru and tied him and wrongfully confined. It is further alleged that subsequently, one Naveen Shetty assaulted on the head and face of the complainant and threatened him that he should pay Rs.25 lakhs to a person whom they are going to name and if he is not going to pay, they will take away his life. When the complainant questioned him as to why he should pay so much of money, then Naveen Shetty told that he has cheated Rs.20 laksh to Nataraj Kalmane Chit Fund in a cricket betting and as such he has to pay the said amount. It is further alleged that thereafter they shifted the complainant to another place, where accused No.4 – petitioner along with Naveen Shetty came and they demanded Rs.10 lakhs. They also gave a mobile handset and he telephoned to one Shiva to arrange for Rs.10 lakhs. But the said Shiva told that he has got only Rs.2,00,000/- and the complainant told about his kidnap and requested him to arrange for money and the said Shiva agreed to arrange Rs.10 lakhs with his friends and thereafter he telephoned to Shiva and told him to pay the same to one Pavan. He further told that the said Naveen Shetty has to be paid the said amount. He also gave a mobile number 9480805120, but the said mobile number belongs to Dy.S.P. and he told to bring the said amount near the Police Quarters where he handed over Rs.10 lakhs at about 10.15 p.m. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered.
4. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel Smt.Pramila Nesargi that after considering the bail application by this Court in Criminal Petition No.6790/2018 on 22.10.2018 an additional charge sheet material has been field and as such the petitioner is having a right to file present petition. She further submitted that the statement of Raghu.C.S indicates that as on the date of the alleged incident the accused was in custody, he has been produced before the Court and vakalath has been obtained. Under such circumstances on the same day the accused participated in the crime is also unbelievable and reliable. She further submitted that the name of the accused is not found in FIR and earlier when the case has been registered against the accused/petitioner under the Gunda Act, same was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court and the same has been quashed and accused has been released on bail. She further submitted that his presence is not required for the purpose of further investigation. She further submits that all other accused persons except accused No.4 have been released on bail and the only apprehension of prosecution is that whether he can be secured for the purpose of trial or not. If the bail is granted by imposing some stringent condition, he is ready to abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, she prays to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that earlier this Court by considering all the material placed on record, dismissed the petition on 22.10.2018. By supporting prosecution she further submits that now there are no good new grounds made out by the accused/petitioner to grant the bail. She further submitted that additional charge sheet has been filed only in respect of accused Nos.13 and 14 not connected with accused/petitioner and there is no such material to help the petitioner. In so far as accused No.4 – petitioner is concerned, no new grounds are put forth by the petitioner so as to revive the earlier bail application which has been filed. She further submitted that there is no cause of action and already 33 cases have been filed as against the accused/petitioner and 12 cases are pending for trial. If the accused/petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may abscond and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds she prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by learned senior counsel as well as the learned HCGP.
7. It is not in dispute that the accused/petitioner approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.6790/2018 and this Court, by considering the merits of the case, by order dated 22.10.2018 had dismissed the petition. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that additional charge sheet has been filed and there are contradictory submissions of one Raghu.C.S whose evidence has been recorded on 21.05.2018. Whether the said evidence has to be appreciated or not is a matter to be considered only at the time of trial. Only because of the reasons that the statement of witness has been recorded which contains contradiction, on the basis of such evidence the presence of accused/petitioner at the place of incident cannot be doubted at this premature stage. Even though it is submitted that the additional charge sheet has been filed but it is the specific case of the learned HCGP that the charge sheet material which was already available in respect of accused/petitioner No.4, at the time of considering the bail application if has been considered and the bail application has been rejected and the additional charge sheet material is only as against the accused Nos.13 and 14. When additional charge sheet has been filed only against accused Nos.13 and 14, then under such circumstances, the said additional charge sheet will not enure to benefit of the accused No.4 to revive the earlier application which has been already rejected. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances, there is no cause so as to interfere with the order of this Court to re- consider the bail application and in that light the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NS