Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 403 (KAR)

Chiranjeevi v. State Of Karnataka And Others

2020-02-12

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The present petitioners are the accused in Crime No.138/2019 of the Respondent Brahmapur Police Station, who have filed their petitions under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Cr.P.C.), seeking their enlargement on bail for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'IPC'). 2. The summary of the case of prosecution is that, on the night of 09-12-2019 at about 7:00 p.m., when the complainant boarded an autorickshaw to go to his house, the driver of the said autorickshaw, instead of taking him to his desired destination, made four other people to board his autorickshaw on the way and deviating the route, took the passenger/complainant to an isolated place near the mortuary of the District Hospital and threatened him to his life at the point of the knife and robbed him of Rs.7,000/- in cash, which the passenger/complainant is said to have been possessing with him. 3. The complainant after claiming to have noticed the registration number of the said autorickshaw, went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint, which came to be registered against five unknown persons and an autorickshaw for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. 4. The respondent Police further claim that during the investigation, they noticed the vehicle involved in the alleged commission of crime and through its driver, they came to know about the participation of the remaining four accused in the alleged commission of the crime. They further claim that, after apprehending the remaining accused, they could able to recover the knife and some portion of the looted amount from them. With the said contentions, the Police have also filed a charge sheet against the present five accused persons for the alleged offence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submitted that the Police, throughout, in the alleged investigation, have committed several of the mistakes including the non-examination of the owner of the alleged autorickshaw to ascertain that it was his autorickshaw that was involved in the commission of the crime and that it was being driven by a particular accused, who, in the instant case is accused No.1, at the alleged time of the offence. He further submitted that the respondent Police, in order to show the statistics for station purposes, have filed a false case against the accused. He further submitted that the respondent Police, in order to show the statistics for station purposes, have filed a false case against the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners also mentioned that the very narration of the Investigating Officer that during his rounds, he noticed that an autorickshaw involved in the commission of crime and apprehended the same is also unbelievable in the circumstance of the case. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent State, while reiterating the contention taken up by him in his statement of objection submitted that, the Investigating Officer has recovered a portion of the alleged looted amount from each of the accused, as such, there are incriminating materials collected against the accused which would not permit the petitioners for their enlargement on bail. 7. Admittedly, the complaint is silent about the identification or naming of any of the accused, however, he has given the registration number of the alleged autorickshaw said to have been used in the commission of the crime. But the point to be noted here is, from a perusal of the charge sheet, at this stage, would go to show that, the Investigating Officer has not attempted to collect the details of the ownership of the vehicle and of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. 8. As admitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader, the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of the alleged owner of the vehicle nor has collected the details of the ownership of the vehicle from the Regional Transport Authorities. As such, I do not find any reason to straightaway weed out the merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, had the owner of the alleged vehicle been inquired by the Investigating Officer, the details of the alleged driver of the vehicle as at the time of the alleged offence could have been collected. The said aspect, though cannot be given any conclusive finding by this Court in these petitions, however, the said aspect may require a finding, if necessary, in the trial. The said aspect, though cannot be given any conclusive finding by this Court in these petitions, however, the said aspect may require a finding, if necessary, in the trial. Suffice it to say, at this stage that, the alleged offence, though is punishable under Section 395 of IPC, however, even according to the prosecution, the alleged recovery has already been made as per the deposition of the accused and the continuation of the accused in judicial custody is not warranted in the circumstance of the case. However, the apprehension of the prosecution that the accused may flee from justice and would remain absconded and could not be available for the trial can be checked by imposing reasonable conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER [I] All the three Criminal Petitions are allowed; [II] The petitioners, i.e. Chiranjeevi S/o. Champala Patil, Aged about 20 years, Resident of near Vithal Mandi, Bapur nagar, Kalaburagi District (petitioner in Crl.Petition No.200070/2020); (1) Pavan, S/o. Prabhu Kale, Aged about 20 years, (2) Keval S/o. Kishan Upadya, aged about 26 years, and (3) Kirankumar S/o. Mohandas Kale, aged about 30 years, all residents of near Vital Mandir, Bapu Nagar, Taluk and Dist: Kalaburagi (petitioners in Criminal Petition No.200098/2020) and Sangamesh, S/o. Gopi Upadhya, Aged about 20 years, resident of Vithal Mandir, Bapu Nagar, Kalaburagi (petitioner in Criminal Petition No.200088/2020), be enlarged on bail, in Crime No.138/2019 of Brahmapur Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, subject to the following conditions: (i) Each of the accused/petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with two local solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging Court; (ii) No single surety can extend his suretyship for more than one accused; (iii) The accused/petitioners shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses and materials in any manner; (iv) The accused/petitioners shall appear on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court; (v) The accused/petitioners to give in writing about the change in their address, if any, to the Trial Court as and when such change occurs and obtain an acknowledgement in that regard.