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

Narayana Swamy vs The State

High Court Of Karnataka|07 August, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.727 of 2019 BETWEEN:
NARAYANA SWAMY, S/O. ANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT GANGADHAR BUILDING, NEAR POOJA BAKERY, NAGAVARAPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 093.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATER) AND:
THE STATE, BY BELLANDUR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.No.313 of 2018 OF BELLANDURU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABEL UNDER SECTIONS 399, 402, 120-B, 109, 107, 115, 118 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.4 in C.C.No.29789/2018 pending on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402, 120-B, 109, 307, 115, 118 read with Section 149 of IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.08.2018, at about 6.45 p.m., the respondent-Police have received a credible information that seven to eight persons were holding deadly weapons in their hands, assembled themselves near a vacant place at Halanayakanahalli lake for the purpose of preparing themselves to commit dacoity. On receipt of the said credible information, the Police went to that particular spot and arrested some of the accused persons particularly, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 were arrested and on the basis of their voluntary statement, accused No.4, who is the petitioner, was also involved in this case. The said accused ran away from the spot at that particular point of time. The Police have also seized certain articles like knife, chilli powder etc., from the said persons, who were arrested. At the time of filing of the charge sheet, the Police have also incorporated Section 307 of IPC, but it is astonishing to the Court that there is absolutely no offence under Section 307 of IPC is available in the charge sheet. It is only an imagination of the Investigating Officer that these persons might have gathered there for the purpose of assaulting somebody and thereafter they failed, as such it is an attempt to commit murder. It is very strange to accept the said observation made in the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer.
4. Looking to the above said circumstances, it is only a preparation to commit dacoity as alleged in the charge sheet. There is no dacoity committed as has been alleged and no recovery has also been made and the charge sheet has already been filed. Whether this petitioner was actually there in the group of accused Nos.1 to 3 and others has to be established during the course of full-fledged trial. Under the above said circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail by imposing conditions. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.313/2018 of Bellanduru Police Station, Bengaluru City, (C.C.No.29789/2018) on the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and he shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Jurisdictional Court.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru District without prior permission of the Court, till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months whichever is earlier.
Sd/- JUDGE mv
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

Narayana Swamy vs The State

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
07 August, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra