IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8892/2017 BETWEEN:
1.Sri.Sunil @ Koli s/o,Sri.Subramani aged about 19 years r/at near Sallapuramma Temple Kottanoor, Bangalore 560 076 2. Sri.Punit @ Gungru @ Vandre s/o.Sri.Ramesha aged about 19 years residing at Chandramma’s House Near Veerabhadreshwara Bar Hunasemara, Kothanur, Bangalore 560 076 ... PETITIONERS (By Sri. Naushad Pasha - Adv.) AND:
The State of Karnataka By Talaghattapur Police Station Bangalore, Represented by the SPP High Court of Karnataka High court Building, Bangalore -560 001 ...RESPONDENT (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.284/2017 Thalaghattapura PS, Bangalore, for the offence P/U/S of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused 8 and 10 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Section 364(A) r/w.149 of IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime No.284/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused 8 and 10 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Referring to the prosecution material the learned counsel made the submission that the FIR came to be registered against unknown 8 to 9 persons. He made the submission that even looking to the contents of the complaint, there is no case against the present petitioners who are Accused 8 & 10. The learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, under which the bail applications are rejected. Referring to paragraph 9 of the said order, the learned counsel submitted that there is a reference regarding the person who alleged to have been kidnapped that he was hearing the conversation and the persons who are conversing are one Girish-A6, Satisha-A5, Puneeth-A1, Manjunatha-A9 and one Appu. Hence, he submitted that even while referring to the statement of the husband of the complainant also, the names of the present petitioners are not at all mentioned. Hence, he submitted there is no prima facie case as against them and that by imposing reasonable conditions they may be admitted to regular bail.
4. Learned counsel also made the submission that the father of petitioner No.1 expired about one month back and he has produced the document along with the memo dated 09.11.2017.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that serious allegations are made in the complaint as well as in the statement of the complainant and the husband of the complainant for attempting the alleged offence under Section 364A of IPC. The alleged offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Matter is still under investigation. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also, the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru in rejecting the bail application.
7. Looking to the available materials and the statement of the learned HCGP that the matter is still under investigation and final report is yet to be filed in this case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case of the petitioners, I am of the opinion that at this stage, it is not appropriate for this Court to allow the petition and release the petitioners on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved that immediately after completion of the investigation and filing of the final report, the petitioners can approach the concerned court for renewing their request for release on bail.
Sd/- JUDGE rs