IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6971/2017 BETWEEN:
SRI SATHEESH KUMAR E S/O M.KUMARAN NAIR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT ERINJIPUZHA HOUSE VATTAMATHATTA POST BEDADKA VILLAGE KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT – 571 124. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.VINOD KUMAR, ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SHO UPPINANGADY POLICE STATION PUTTU D.K.
REPRESENTED BY THE SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.131/2017 OF UPPINANGADI P.S., D.K. DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 406, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest by the respondent-police in their Cr.No.131/2017 registered in respect of the offences under sections 406, 420 r/w section 34 of IPC.
3. The allegation is, the petitioner who works as a Contract driver in lorry bearing Regn.No.AP-24-TA-2141 on 20.7.2017 headed for Kasargod with cement bags from the company. On 23.7.2017 he unloaded 394 cement bags and retained 36 cement bags. Though he was to take the lorry to the control point of Cherkala of Kasargod District, deviated the route and took the lorry towards Shirady and disappeared thereafter without any intimation to the complainant. When the complainant went in search of the lorry, he noticed that tyres of the lorry were changed, 200 litres of diesel and 36 cement bags were stolen etc.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner left the job of the company out of enmity, false complaint is lodged. He is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed on him by the court.
5. On the showing of the complaint allegations, he is not an employee of the complainant company, but a contract driver. Though the offences are triable by the Magistrate, since the nature of allegations require his custodial interrogation, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
Hence, the petition is rejected.
Dvr:
Sd/- JUDGE