IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.700/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI.CHETHU @ CHETHAN, S/O.MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT YACHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 572 301. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP.K.C, ADV.,) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN POLICE STATION, HASSAN, REP. BY ITS, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU– 01. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH.B.G, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.369/2018 OF CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN POLICE STATION, HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 504, 506, 120-B, 363, 307 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail in Crime No.369/2018 of Channarayapatna Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 120B, 363 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that accused Nos.3 and 5 have telephoned the injured to his mobile on 22.09.2018 in between 8.26 p.m., and 8.30 p.m., while he was in the house and demanded him to give Rupees One lakh. The complainant expressed his incapacity and told him that he has no such quantum of money with him and why he should be paid that quantum of amount to them. He was threatened with dire consequences, if he will not pay the money with their boys within tomorrow. It is further alleged that on 22.09.2018 at 6.30 p.m., when he was smoking cigarette near Panchami Store of Gayathri Extension of Channarayapatna, accused Nos.1 and 3 and others came in a swift desire car armed with long and swinged the long on first informant on the premises that he refused to pay the money which demanded by accused Nos.3 and 5. The complainant escaped from the said assault and he has sustained some injuries. It is further alleged that he has been forcibly pulled into the car and at that time, the leg of the complainant was injured, by seeing the same, accused persons left the complainant and went away from that place. On the basis of the complaint, a case came to be registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that as on the date of alleged incident, the petitioner/accused No.2 was in judicial custody in Crime No.349/2016 and there is no participation of accused No.3 in the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the petitioner/accused No.3 has not called the complainant and not asked for Rupees One lakh. Further it is submitted that the injuries suffered by the injured are simple in nature and already he has been discharged from the hospital and he is out of danger. It is further submitted that the only allegation is that the petitioner/accused No.3 instigated the other accused persons to commit the crime. But that is also not established from the materials, which has been produced by the prosecution. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and further it is submitted that the petitioner/accused No.3 is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.3 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the alleged incident has taken place only on the intimidation and instigation of accused No.3. Accused No.3 along with other accused persons have called the complainant through the mobile on 22.09.2018 at about 8.26 p.m. and have demanded for Rupees One lakh.
When the complainant refused to pay the said amount, with the help of remaining accused persons, have tried to take away the life of the complainant. There is ample material to connect the accused No.3 to the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the accused petitioner is a habitual offender. If he is released on bail, he may abscond and may not be available for trial. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission of learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other materials, it reveal that the allegations are there for having assaulted the complainant by accused Nos.1 and 2. But in so far as accused No.3 is concerned, at the place of alleged incident the presence of accused No.3 is not there and as on the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner/accused No.3 was in custody in Crime No.349/2016. The only allegation, which has been made as against the petitioner/accused No.3 is that he instigated and intimidated the accused persons to commit the murder for having not paid Rupees One lakh as demanded by him. That is the matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. The injuries suffered are simple in nature and already the injured has been discharged from the hospital, he is out of danger. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Even the other offences are also not attracted in so far as the petitioner/accused No.3 is concerned. Under the said facts and circumstance, I feel that the petitioner has made out a case to release him on bail.
8. Taking into consideration of above facts and circumstances, petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused No.3 is ordered to be release on bail in Crime No.369/2018 of Channarayapatna Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 120B, 363 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner/accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly 3. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
4. He shall not indulge in similar type of activities till the completion of trial.
5. He shall mark his attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., before the jurisdictional police station, till the trial is concluded.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS