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

Sri Rudresha @ Manjunatha vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|16 December, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO.8295/2019 BETWEEN SRI. RUDRESHA @ MANJUNATHA S/O SHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO E-120, PARWATHINAGAR LAGGERE, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU (BY SRI. SHANKAR S.T., ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY COTTONPET POLICE STATION REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS ... PETITIONER BENGALURU – 560 001 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.174/2019 OF COTTONPET POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss. 506, 341, 448, 392, 364-A R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the Respondent–State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.4 in Crime No. 174/2019 of Cottonpet Police Station, Bengaluru City, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 341, 448, 392, 364-A r/w. 34 of IPC, now pending before the Court of XLV Addl. CMM, Bengaluru.
3. As could be seen from the records, the complainant by name Sri. Kiran Y.K. lodged a complaint stating that on 04.09.2019 in the midnight at about 1.00 a.m., while he was driving his autorikshaw near goods-shed road towards Shanthala Silks, four persons who were present in an autorikshaw bearing Registration No.KA.41-B-2664 which was parked near O.T.C. Junction, restrained the complainant from proceeding further and forcibly took him in their autorikshaw, assaulted him with their hands and kicked him with their legs and demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/-. When the complainant told that he has no money, they took the complainant to his house and abused his wife in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences and demanded for money with dire consequences of their lives. Then, the wife of the complainant gave Rs.5,000/- to the accused persons. After receiving the said amount, by warning the complainant and his wife not to inform anybody about the alleged incident, with dire consequences, they went out from the house and again they took the complainant in their autorikshaw and left him near the place, from where they brought him.
4. On careful perusal of the materials available on record and the observation made by this Court in Criminal Petition No.7023/2019 which was allowed on 31.10.2019, there were some money transaction between accused persons and the complainant. Because, during the course of investigation, the police have made an observation that about 1½ years back the complainant has borrowed Rs.5,000/- from the 2nd accused and he has not repaid the same. In that context, it is alleged that the accused persons demanded the said amount from the complainant, but the complainant refused to pay the same. Therefore, the Court felt that the said transaction between the parties creates a serious doubt as to whether the said incident has really happened or not. It is not that the accused persons were not known to the complainant. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has observed that the said allegations have to be proved during the course of full-dressed trial.
5. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the petitioner (A4) has submitted that, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 have already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.10.2019 passed in the above noted petition ie., in Crl.P. No.7023/2019 and therefore, this petitioner may also be released on bail.
6. As the set of facts and circumstances of the above noted petition, whereby the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were released on bail under Section 439 of IPC, are very similar to this petition, this petitioner (A4) is also entitled to be enlarged on Anticipatory Bail on certain conditions. Hence, the following,-
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner (A4) shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.174/2019 of respondent-Cottonpet Police Station, Bengaluru City registered for the aforesaid offences, which is now pending before the Court of XLV Addl. CMM, Bengaluru, on the following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the concerned Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and he shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru District without prior permission of the Court, till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months whichever is earlier.
v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a week ie, on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the concerned Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
KGR* Sd/-
JUDGE
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

Sri Rudresha @ Manjunatha vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
16 December, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra