Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 929 (KAR)

Vasudev v. State Of Karnataka

2020-06-01

H.P.SANDESH

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 365 and 395 of IPC in respect of Crime No.224/2018. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.7. It is alleged in the complaint that when the complainant was driving the truck bearing registration No.KA-28-B-7788 loaded with 173 quintal maize towards Jamakhandi through Mundagnur near Chingundi at about 9.00 p.m., at that time, some persons came in a Cruiser and Innova from behind and asked the complainant the way to go to Jamakhandi. Then they drove the vehicle little forward, caused obstruction, stopped his vehicle and got inside the vehicle and assaulted him. They closed his eyes by tying him with cloth, abducted him in their vehicle and the other person drove the vehicle belonging to the complainant. Thereafter, they snatched the money and mobile of the complainant and he was confined in a room and took the lorry loaded with maize. In all, committed robbery worth of Rs.5,63,000/-. 3. The allegation made in the complaint is against unknown persons and when accused No.1 was arrested, he revealed the involvement of the other persons, who indulged in the crime. Based on the complaint, the police investigated the matter, registered the case and recoveries were made. The main grounds urged in this petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been in custody for the last one year three months. The other accused persons have been enlarged on bail. He would also contend that though there are 19 cases registered against this petitioner, the offence invoked in this case is under Section 395 of IPC and no other case is registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. The other offence invoked against him are under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 482 read with Section 34 of IPC. The police have registered false case against him and hence he cannot be termed as habitual offender. He would also contend that this petitioner also stands in the same footing as that of the other accused, who are enlarged on bail. 4. The police have registered false case against him and hence he cannot be termed as habitual offender. He would also contend that this petitioner also stands in the same footing as that of the other accused, who are enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would contend that this Court earlier rejected his bail petition and made an observation that there are 19 cases against him. An amount of Rs.35,000/- was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. There is a prima facie case to believe the case of the prosecution. Hence, he is not entitled for bail. 5. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, this Court has to examine as to whether this Court can exercise its discretion for grant of bail in favour of the petitioner. 6. Having taken note of the contents of the complaint, no doubt at the first instance the case was registered against unknown persons and only on apprehending accused No.1, he revealed the involvement of other accused persons. The recoveries are made at the instance of this petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that the allegations made against this petitioner is that the maize worth of Rs.3,00,000/- was unloaded near the house of this petitioner and the vehicle was left in a remote place. The vehicle was valued for Rs.2,50,000/- and the vehicle was recovered since the same was left in a lonely place. 7. Having considered the gravity of the offence and also the allegations made against this petitioner, though there are 19 cases registered against him, the prosecution is unable to place any material before the Court that this petitioner was indulged in similar offence under Section 395 of IPC and also the fact that the other accused persons were enlarged on bail is not disputed. Merely because there are 19 cases registered against him, this Court cannot reject the bail petition on that ground and also he has been in custody from last one year three months. The investigation is completed and the recovery is also made and with regard to the involvement of this petitioner, it is subject matter of trial. Merely because there are 19 cases registered against him, this Court cannot reject the bail petition on that ground and also he has been in custody from last one year three months. The investigation is completed and the recovery is also made and with regard to the involvement of this petitioner, it is subject matter of trial. However, taking note of registration of several cases against him, this Court can exercise the discretion and can also impose certain stringent conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution not to indulge in similar offences in future. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.224/2018 of Jamakhandi Police in C.C.No.23/2019 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM Court, Jamakhandi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 365 and 395 of IPC subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of. (v) The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences in future.