IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7486/2017 Between:
Naveen @ Naveen Kumar B P S/o Puttathimmaiah Aged about 27 years Occ: Private Car Driver R/at No.13, II Main, V Cross Chowdeshwarinagara, Laggere Bengaluru – 560 079 Native place address:
Bheemanahalli village Devalapura Post Nagamangala Taluk Mandya District – 571 432 ...Petitioner (By Sri Chandrashekara K A, Advocate) And The State of Karnataka By the police of Byadarahalli Police Station Ramanagara District – 560 081 Represented by SPP High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru - 560 001 ...Respondent (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.441/2017 of Byadarahalli Police Station, Ramanagara for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 353, 332, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Section 143, 353, 332 and 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.441/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3 so also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Referring to the complaint, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made submission that, so far as the alleged assault is concerned, it is accused Nos.1 and 2 and there are no such allegations of overt- act by the present petitioner. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that, even the contents of entire complaint is taken into consideration, they will not attract the alleged offences as against the present petitioner. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that in view of these material and as the petitioner is in custody from the date of his arrest, by imposing reasonable conditions, he may be admitted to regular bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader made submission that, looking to the prosecution materials, there are allegations even against the present petitioner that he was a member of the group of accused Nos.1 and 2 along with other accused, when the alleged offence took place, he was also caught red-handed. Learned High Court Government Pleader also made submission that today itself, another accused No.5 Vijay Kumar also sought for his release on bail. The matter was in Crl.P.No.7448/2017. The Court after noticing that investigation is going on and at this stage, it would not be proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail, rejected the bail application of accused No.5 Vijay Kumar. He further submits that even there are three other cases registered against the present petitioner and investigation is still going on. Hence, he submits that at this stage the present petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other documents produced by the petitioner so also the order of the learned Sessions Judge, rejecting the bail application of the present petitioner.
6. Looking to the materials placed on record, it is no doubt true the allegation of assault with deadly weapon is against accused Nos.1 and 2 – Vijay and Harish respectively. But, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, he was also present and caught red-handed by the police at the spot along with other accused. Accused No.5 Vijay Kumar also sought for his release on bail and as already noted that investigation is going on, at this stage it is not proper to allow the petition and release him on bail, the present petitioner is also placed in a similar situation. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. However, he would be at liberty to move the concerned Court after completion of investigation and filing of the final report.
With these observations, for the present, the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE KMV*