IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7146 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
SRI ERAPPA RAMANNA ERANNA S/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT GURUSUNAGI VILLAGE SAHAPUR TALUK YADAGIRI DISTRICT – 585 201.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI B.J. KRISHNA, ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BYADARAHALLI POLICE BENGALURU – 560 091.
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.
(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.410/2017 OF BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 381 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent – Police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence under Section 381 of IPC registered in respondent – Police Station Crime No.410/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 25.07.2017, one Praveen Kumar lodged complaint making allegations that he owns the Tractor and he was using the same for personal use and also used on rental basis. Accused No.1 – Devendrappa was the Driver, who was running the said Tractor on hire in Bengaluru and after day’s work, he was parking it in the farm house. On 24.07.2017 at about 6.30 a.m., accused - Devendrappa telephoned to the complainant and informed him that on 23.07.2017 as usual the tractor was locked and parked in front of the house and in the morning it was not there. Even though complainant searched for the missing tractor at all places, it was not traced. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the alleged offence. Firstly, against accused No.1 - Devendrappa, the Driver, but subsequently during the course of investigation, police have arraigned the present petitioner as accused No.2.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – accused No.2 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent – State.
4. Perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case.
5. In the complaint as well as in the FIR, name of the present petitioner was not figured and even there was no suspicion raised as against the present petitioner. But subsequently basing on the statement of accused No.1, the present petitioner has been arraigned. Looking to the prosecution material, the serious allegations are against accused No.1. The petitioner contended that he is innocent, not involved in committing alleged offence and there is a false implication. He has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. The alleged offence is also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent- Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Section 381 of IPC registered in respondent - police station Crime No.410/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i) Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii) Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv) The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/- JUDGE ca