Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 930 (KAR)

R. Gagan v. State Of Karnataka

2020-06-01

N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This matter is taken up through Video Conference today. 2. Learned counsel Sri.I.S.Pramod Chandra for petitioner and Sri.M.Diwakar Maddur learned HCGP for respondent are present. 3. The petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner seeks the relief of bail in Crime No.62/2020 for the offence punishable under section 397 of IPC, maintained by the respondent Police. 4. The petitioner is in Judicial Custody from 05.03.2020. 5. The date of complaint is 03.03.2020. He was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.03.2020. 6. Previously, the petitioner had made application before the learned LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.2259/2020 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. that came to be rejected on 13.03.2020. Hence, this petition. 7. Copy of the petition is served on learned HCGP for respondent. 8. Heard. 9. The substance of the complaint registered against the petitioner is that: the complainant is one Darshan, aged 18 years, s/o Shrinivas. Complaint is filed on 04.03.2020 by stating that the crime was committed by the petitioner. 10. The complainant Darshan in his complaint states that at about 1.15 P.M. on 03.03.2020 the complainant and his friends Arjun and Sagar were sitting in front of a provision store by which time three persons came on a Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle. Out of them one person showed the long sword (weapon) and asked the complainant to shell down the mobile phone and wallet. When the complainant refused for the same, one out of them hit the complainant below the right eye and also hit him by hand. The other one took out the long and used the rear side of it to hit the complainant below knee. The complainant was stripped of mobile phoneVivo-Y-15 worth Rs.8,000/-. When the friends of the complainant tried to catch them said persons fled after hitting Arjun friend of complainant with rear side of long. As the complainant was not acquainted with the said person they verified with neighbours who told them that the persons who attacked were Ganesh @ Pooka and Gagan and the name of third person was not known. The complainant states Ganesh @ Pooka and Gagan are those who hit the complainant. The complainant states that he went to Shobha Hospital, Prashanthnagar for medical treatment. 11. The complainant states Ganesh @ Pooka and Gagan are those who hit the complainant. The complainant states that he went to Shobha Hospital, Prashanthnagar for medical treatment. 11. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered against Ganesh @ Pooka, Gagan and one unknown person in Crime No.62/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC. 12. The petitioner claims that he is a student. Offence registered is punishable under Section 397 of IPC for which the minimum punishment provided is seven years and fine. The petitioner -Gagan is accused No.2. He was stated to be arrested on 05.03.2020 and he is in custody. 13. Petitioner claims innocence and submits that a wrong case is filed on false grounds against him. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Pramod Chandra would submit that the petitioner and his family are put to trauma and turmoil because of the registration of the case and judicial custody of the petitioner besides pandemic. It was submitted that the petitioner has no criminal background. On the other hand case came to be registered because of unrest and ragging tendency among the students. There are set of students who have formed gang and are harassing. The petitioner is stated to be a person who follows discipline and has no bad intentions. 15. Learned counsel submits that there was no fault of any kind from petitioner. The respondent-police have registered the said case against the petitioner only to keep him under the threat and nervousness. Petitioner offers solvent surety and undertakes to abide by the conditions. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the police have registered the above against the petitioner even when there was no ground for the same. The petitioner is a student and was taken by surprise by the registration of the said criminal case. Police have registered the case in haste without realizing the fact of the matter. 16. Learned Government Pleader for respondent opposes the bail petition of the petitioner and submits that mobile was recovered from the petitioner and that overt acts is alleged against him and he is not entitled for bail. 17. Learned Government Pleader submits that the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner is heinous and has dreadful circumstances on the society. He has no regard for law and justice and he is not entitled for bail. 18. 17. Learned Government Pleader submits that the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner is heinous and has dreadful circumstances on the society. He has no regard for law and justice and he is not entitled for bail. 18. The submission regarding judicial custody of the petitioner is concerned the amount of frustration and annoyance caused by pandemic is taken note of. 19. Perused the overt acts alleged in the complaint and that of the allegation that the Accused had long (weapon) with him, showed it to complainant and hit the complainant from the hind side of it. 20. In the circumstances, I find considering the status of a student and criminal case registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC, I find that the necessity of the petitioner to be placed in judicial custody does not arise or may not be further needed regard being had to the fact he is in judicial custody from 05.03.2020 and there is no allegation of interference to the investigation. In the circumstances I find no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution in case petitioner is ordered to be released on bail. The apprehension of the prosecution however may be resolved by imposing suitable conditions on the petitioner. 21. Further, the petitioner has also mentioned about Section 66(B) of I.T. Act. However, there is no mention of Section 66(B) of I.T. Act in the FIR nor in the orders. This order is applicable for the Crime No.62/2020 of the respondent-police. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C by the petitioner is hereby allowed. He is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.62/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC registered by the respondent police subject to following conditions: i) The petitioner-accused shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety of a person possessing immovable properties for the likesum. ii) The petitioner-accused shall not terrorize the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner. iii) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Karnataka pending investigation of the case. iv) The petitioner-accused shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer of the above case on every first Wednesday of the month at 7 p.m. till completion of investigation. v) The petitioner shall not commit similar type of offence. iii) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Karnataka pending investigation of the case. iv) The petitioner-accused shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer of the above case on every first Wednesday of the month at 7 p.m. till completion of investigation. v) The petitioner shall not commit similar type of offence. vi) Petitioner shall place himself in quarantine for a period of 14 days at home before which he shall get himself medically checked.