IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6059 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1 MURALI, S/O PARASAPPA BHOVI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 2 KUBERA, S/O VEERABHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 3 SHIVARAYA, S/O RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, PETITIONRS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/O GINIVALA, VADDIGERI VILLAGE, SORAB TALUK – 577429 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI B.S.PRASAD, ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, ANAVATTI POLICE STATION, SORAB TALUK – 577429 REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONRS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.137/2017 OF ANAVATTI P.S., SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 504, 323, 392 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest by the respondent police in their Crime No.137/2017 registered in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 323, 392 r/w 34 of IPC.
3. The allegation is, on the night of 22.06.2017 while the complainant along with his friend was proceeding on his motorcycle towards their village, he observed that three miscreants had waylaid a Mahindra Magnum Vehicle on the middle of the road and were quarreling with the driver. Hence, the complainant asked them to park their vehicle off the road. But, those persons followed the complainant on their two motorcycles and abused him, waylaid his motor bike and manhandled him. They assaulted the pillion rider also and snatched his gold chain, Nokia mobile and cash amount. By that time, the inmates of the auto rickshaw also informed that they were also assaulted and cash amount is extorted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that very fact that the complainant has named these petitioners in his complainant indicates that they are all known to each other and the question of offence under Section 392 of IPC is an impossibility. Consequent upon a small scuffle between them, a false complaint is lodged against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are from the respectable family. They undertake to co-operate with the Investigating Officer for further investigation and hence they may be released on bail.
5. Learned HCGP while opposing the petition submits that there is a specific allegation against these petitioners about the extortion of the valuables from the complainant and his friends and they are required for custodial interrogation to recover all the stolen property.
6. Having gone through the complaint allegation, it is noticed that there is no delay in lodging the complaint. The fact that not only the complainant alleges about the overt acts committed by these petitioners against him, but also they extorted money from the auto rickshaw driver, does not impress the Court to grant an anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, petition is rejected.
KLY/ Sd/- JUDGE