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

Rahul K vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|14 May, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1920 OF 2019 Between:
Rahul K S/o. Ramesh K Aged 20 years, Diploma Student R/at No.71, 3rd Main, 8th Cross, Vinayaka Nagara, Banashankari Bengaluru – 560 050 (By Sri. Shivaprasad Y.S., Advocate) And:
State of Karnataka, By rural P.S., Arasikere Represented by Special Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) … Petitioner ... Respondent This Criminal petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.19/2019 of Arasikere Rural Police station, Hassan for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.19/2019 of Arasikere Rural Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 395 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for respondent- State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.01.2019, the complainant who was working as a Manager in Hindustan UniLever Company (Kamala Enterprises) situated at APMC Yard Arasikere was proceeding in his company vehicle bearing No.KA-13 C 4123 along with delivery boys and about 9.00 pm they were returning and when they reached Ramenahalli Reserve forest area on Huliyar-Arasikere road, all of a sudden 6 to 8 persons holding rods and clubs way-laid their vehicle and sprayed some spray on the face of the driver of the said goods vehicle. One person assaulted on the left leg of the complainant with a club, threatened him and robbed Rs.2,42,621/- which belonged to the Company along with some delivery bills and also a bag containing mobile hand set belonging to the complainant with Idea SIM bearing No.9071062816 and then they ran away from the spot. The petitioner herein came to be arrested along with two other persons on 12.02.2019 and at his instance one pepper spray was seized under a mahazar.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the case has been registered against unknown persons and petitioner has been falsely implicated. There is no cash seized from the petitioner. He further submits that there is no bad antecedents and the petitioner will abide by any reasonable conditions which this Court may impose while granting bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP contended that the investigation is still in progress and petitioner is arraigned as accused No.6 and if he is enlarged on bail he may tamper with the prosecution witness and flee from justice.
6. It is seen that the First Information Report was registered against unknown persons and prior to the arrest of the petitioners, three other accused were arrested. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, only on the basis of the voluntary statement of other accused persons, the present petitioner has been implicated. At the instance of petitioner, pepper spray has been seized. However, cash has been recovered at the instance of other accused persons. There is no allegation of any bad antecedents against the petitioner.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioner may be enlarged on bail imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, I pass the following:-
ORDER 1. Criminal petition is allowed.
2. Petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court.
3. He shall not tamper with the prosecution witness in any manner. He shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police station on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm till filing of the charge sheet before the Court.
4. He shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.
5. He shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.
6. If any of the conditions are violated, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
Sd/- JUDGE ag
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

Rahul K vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
14 May, 2019
Judges
  • Mohammad Nawaz