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.5491/2018 BETWEEN:
Sri Huttesh P.S. S/o Shekarappa Aged about 43 years R/at Kenchikoppa Village Honnali Taluk Davanagere District.
(By Sri D.L. Jagadeesh, Senior Counsel for Sri Chakravarthy T.S., Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Nyamathi Police Station, Davanagere District Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP) …Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.130/2017 (C.C.No.762/2017) for the offences punishable under Sections 343, 342, 397, 365 and 364A of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/ accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Crime No.130/2017 of Nyamathi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 343, 342, 397, 365, 364A of Indian Penal Code.
2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri D.L.Jagadeesh appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant on 27.7.2017 left Bengaluru in Mercedes Benz Car with a view to offer prayers to the deity of Lakshmeshwar. When he was returning back he was taking the tea at Ranebennur. On the way he met one Rajappa. The said Rajappa told that there is good business and if the deal goes then there would be lot of profit. Then the complainant asked what is the nature of the business and the deal, he did not tell anything and he only told that he will call the parties. The complainant agreed and they stayed one day in Ranebennur and at that time another person by name Srinivas came. The said Rajappa introduced him as his friend and as per his request the complainant stayed in the lodge. He further stated that on 28.7.2017 at about 10.00 a.m. U.T.Patel came to the said lodge and after some time Rajappa, Srinivas came and made telephone call to accused No.2-Guru and accused No.1-Huttesh and asked them to come to Ranebennur. Then both accused Nos.1 and 2 came and told that they will speak about the said business. At that time said U.T.Patel called Sorab Manjunatha and he also came to the lodge stayed with them. On 29.7.2017 at about 8.00 a.m. three friends arrived and at about 10.30 a.m. accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 also came there and asked the complainant to accompany them and thereafter the accused was taken to the house of accused No.1 and there they kidnapped and assaulted him and by confining him in a house they asked to pay a ransom and also got executed the documents. It is further alleged that after obtaining the signature, in the evening time all the accused persons have brought him to the bypass road near Harihara and returned the mobile, ATM cards and threatened him not to disclose the said fact to anybody. Then he boarded the bus, came to the house and after taking rest and after discussions, a complaint was registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that this Court rejected bail application filed by accused No.1 in Criminal Petition No.10095/2017 and thereafter the petitioner/accused filed one more criminal petition No.1327/2018. The same also came to be rejected on 17.4.2018. Against the said order, the petitioner/accused approached the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Appeal (Criminal) No.4757/2018. The Hon’ble Apex Court by order dated 30.5.2018 has given liberty to the petitioner to renew the bail application after six months and as such now he has moved this Court to release the petitioner/accused on bail. He further submitted that under the similar facts and circumstances of the case by order dated 22.1.2018 accused No.4 was released on bail and by order dated 17.4.2018 accused Nos.3 and 5 have been released on bail and subsequently by order dated 20.6.2018 accused No.2 has been released on bail.
Now charge sheet has been filed. Under the similar facts and circumstances other accused persons have been released on bail. On the ground of parity, the petitioner/accused is also entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that there is joint recovery from the possession of the accused. Under such circumstances, the petitioner/accused is also entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that there is delay of 12 days in filing the complaint. He further submitted that the petitioner/accused is also suffering from health ailment and he has taken treatment in the District Hospital. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that this Court by order dated 22.1.2018 after considering the merits of the case rejected the petition filed by the accused No.1 on the ground that there is prima facie case as against petitioner/accused No.1. Subsequently also one more petition came to be filed by accused No.1 and the said application is also dismissed on merits. There is prima facie material to connect the accused to the alleged crime. The complainant was kidnapped and kept in the house of accused No.1 and neighbours house. CWs.1 and 7 have also stated in the statement that what has happened and how the complainant has been wrongfully confined in the said house. She further submitted that even CWs.13 and 15 have also deposed as against petitioner/accused. It is the petitioner/accused who is the master mind behind the crime. If the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail, again he may involve in similar type of criminal activities. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. As could be seen from the material available, this Court by order dated 17.4.2018 in Criminal Petition No.1327/2018 rejected the bail application in respect of the petitioner/accused No.1. Against the said order the petitioner/accused has approached the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court by order dated 30.5.2018 has dismissed the petition and while so dismissing liberty has been granted to the petitioner to renew the bail application after six months. Under the said facts and circumstance, several bail petitions have been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1, but in view of the liberty to the petitioner, the present petition is maintainable.
8. As could be seen from the records, the contents of the complaint and other material clearly goes to show that the complainant met Rajappa, Rajappa introduced all the accused persons and thereafter the complainant was kidnapped and confined in the room of accused No.1 and there they have assaulted and snatched the money and even threatened with life and asked the ransom. But as could be seen from the records though under the similar facts and circumstances this court has already released accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 though participation of the accused is there, as per the charge sheet material which has been made available, when the remaining accused persons have been released on bail, on the ground of parity the petitioner/accused is also entitled to be released on bail. However, in order to protect the interest of the prosecution, imposing reasonable condition are necessary. Under the said facts and circumstances without discussing the merits of the case, I feel that the petitioner/accused has made out a ground to release him on bail.
9. In the light of the discussions held by me above, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.130/2017 of Nyamathi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 343, 342, 397, 365, 364A of Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner 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.
ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
iii) He shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police on 1st of every month between 10.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. till the trial is concluded.
iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Court.
- 10 -
v) If he again involve in similar type of criminal activities, the respondent police is at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-