IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.9260/2018 Between:
Sri Ranjith Kumar, S/o Sadashivaiah, Aged about 30 years, R/at Sugganahally Village, Kudur Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District – 571 511. … Petitioner (By Smt. Padmavathy, Advocate a/w Sri Narasimharaju, Advocate) And:
State by Kudur Police Station, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District – 571 511, Rep. by its SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001. … Respondent (By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.92/2018 of Kudur Police Station, Magadi for the offences p/u/s 364-A and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.92/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was filed by the father of the boy on 24.02.2018 stating that his son was studying in 4th standard and that while he was not in town on 24.02.2018, he received a phone call from a stranger and was told that his son was kidnapped. It is stated that when the complainant enquired at his house, he was told that his son was missing from 8.00 p.m. It is alleged that the complainant is stated to have received another phone call wherein a demand for ransom has been made. On the basis of the said incident, complaint was lodged, FIR is registered and charge sheet has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that proof of offence is a matter for trial; that the accused is staying adjacent to the house of the complainant; that admittedly, no harm was caused to the child; that the version of the prosecution is disputed and it is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents. It is also stated that the petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2018.
4. As per the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner, there are no criminal antecedents and the said aspect remains uncontroverted. Proof of offence is a matter to be established during trial. Considering that there was no harm caused to the boy and he was secured within few hours of the alleged crime and noting that the petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2018, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. Accordingly, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No. 92/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities of like nature.
(iv) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(v) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(vi) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE VP