Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

N Srinivas Reddy And Others vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|27 August, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5791/2019 BETWEEN 1. N. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Late Nagi Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Building Development Business, Residing at No.80, 1st Cross, Bhuvaneshwara Layout, Dasarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 024.
2. N. Vema Reddy, S/o Late Nagi Reddy, Aged about 49 years, Agriculturists residing At No.73, 12Th A Cross, 1st Main Road, Maruthi Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 024.
(By Sri. Shankarappa S, Advocate) AND State of Karnataka by Hennur P.S. – 560 043.
Rep by HCGP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri. K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) …Petitioners …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed u/s.438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.215/2019 of Hennur P.S., Bengaluru City for the offence p/u/s 323, 427, 448, 452 R/W 149 of IPC.
This petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R That on the complaint lodged by one Sri.Navaneeth Krishnan @ Krishnan, respondent- Police have registered a case in Crime No.215/2019 for the offence under Sections 149, 448, 452, 323 and 427 read with Section 149 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case on hand is that the complainant has stated in the complaint that the complainant has purchased site measuring 1500 square feet in Khatha No.232/5 (Old No.4/4), Site No.5 in Amani Byrathi Khane, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk from one Lakshmana Rao and has constructed a building in the said site and given the same for rent. It is alleged that on 16/17.07.2019 in the night hours at about 2.00 a.m., the petitioners and others went to that particular spot and assaulted the inmates and taken away house-hold articles and demolished the building by using two J.C.Bs. On getting the application from the tenants, the Petitioner No.1 saw two J.C.Bs at the spot and none of the accused persons were there and they ran away from the spot. On the above said allegations, the Police have investigated the matter.
3. The materials available on record show that the petitioners herein have also claimed that they have purchased the property in Survey No.4/4 of Amani Byrathi village and they have also got converted the land for residential purpose. The RTC extract does not show the existence of any building in the said land. The petitioners have also produced the registered sale deed with respect to the said land and also the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner with reference to the conversion of the land in Survey No.4/4 of Amani Byrathi Khane to the extent of 27 guntas. From looking to the above said facts and circumstances, it appears that there is some property dispute between the parties. With reference to the same, some quarrel must have taken place between the two groups. In that context, it appears the complaint came to be lodged by different persons in respect of the said property. Except the offence under Section 452 of IPC, other offences are bailable in nature. Section 452 is punishable maximum to the extent of seven years and none of the offences are punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, it is more in the nature of a civil dispute between the parties which appears to have been propped up in a criminal proceedings.
4. Therefore, looking to the nature of allegations made against the petitioners and further that accused were not actually present at the time when the incident happened and only two J.C.Bs were there, the petitioners who are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 and 3 are entitled for grant of bail. As Accused No.2 has already been enlarged on bail by the Magistrate Court, even on the ground of parity, petitioners- Accused Nos.1 and 3 are entitled to be enlarged on bail by imposing stringent conditions.
5. The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.215/2019 of Hennur Police Station, subject to the following conditions:-
i) The petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and they shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission, till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months whichever is earlier.
v) The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv Ct:VBS
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

N Srinivas Reddy And Others vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
27 August, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra