Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 330 (KAR)

Kiran R. v. State of Karnataka

2021-03-01

K.NATARAJAN

body2021
ORDER : K. NATARAJAN, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent. 2. This petition is filed by Accused No. 14 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No. 9/2021 registered by Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 of IPC, Section 20[B][ii][b] of NDPS Act, 1985 and also Section 25[1][B][b] of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on credible information, the Police Sub-Inspector of Peenya Police Station along with his team have visited the spot and arrested three accused-Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and whereas other persons are said to have ran away on 17.01.2021. The Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are also found in possession of ganja of 2 kg and also seized some weapons. On the voluntary statement of the Accused Nos. 1 to 3, they also implicated Accused Nos. 4 to 9 for the aforesaid offences. After the arrest of the Accused No. 6, he has revealed that at the instance of Accused No. 12 who is said to be in jail and he has instigated Accused No. 6 to commit murder of three persons i.e., Abhi, Vishal and Praveen and he has stated that the present petitioner along with other persons are having his finance for the commission of the planned offence. On the basis of the voluntary statement made by the Accused No. 6, the Police made efforts to arrest the petitioner and hence he has approached the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail which came to be rejected. Hence, he has filed the present petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. His name has been falsely implicated only on the voluntary statement of the Accused No. 6. There are no allegations against him except he is having some finance and the petitioner's marriage is fixed on 3.3.2021 at Dharmasthala and the offences are punishable with death or life imprisonment. Therefore, he has prayed for granting of anticipatory bail. 5. The learned Government Pleader objected the bail proceedings and contended that the petitioner is absconding from the date of the offence. Therefore, he has prayed for granting of anticipatory bail. 5. The learned Government Pleader objected the bail proceedings and contended that the petitioner is absconding from the date of the offence. The voluntary statement of Accused No. 6 clearly reveals that there are no actual plans to commit murder of three persons and the same was prevented by the Police by arresting Accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6. The Police are still investigating the matter. Two kgs of ganja and weapons have been recovered from the accused persons and therefore prayed for rejection of bail. 6. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, it shows that the Police arrested Accused Nos. 1 to 3 on credible information where they were found in possession of 1 kg. 990 grams of ganja and the same was recovered by the Police and the voluntary statement reveals that other six persons have ran away from the spot and whose names are reflected in the first information report as Accused Nos. 4 to 9. During the investigation, the Police again arrested Accused Nos. 5 and 6 and voluntary statement of Accused No. 6 reveals that the Accused No. 12 is said to be in jail who informed him to commit murder of three persons and the present petitioner is having money belonging to the Accused No. 12. Except this contention, there is no other material to show that the petitioner is involved in any plan to murder any person or preparation to commit dacoity which attracts Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. The Accused Nos. 1 to 3 have been found in possession of ganja which attracts offence punishable under Section 20[B][ii][b] of the NDPS Act, 1985. But, the prosecution has not been able to place any material evidence for the offences alleged against the petitioner except the voluntary statement of the Accused No. 6. The petitioner is also said to have his marriage fixed on 3.3.2021 at Dharmasthala and he is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is also said to have his marriage fixed on 3.3.2021 at Dharmasthala and he is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. ORDER The respondent-Police is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 9/2021 by Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 of IPC, Section 20[B][ii][b] of NDPS Act, 1985 and also Section 25[1][B][b] of the Arms Act, 1959, subject to the following terms and conditions: i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court. ii) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. iii) The petitioner is deemed to be in custody under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission of the Sessions Court except the alleged marriage on 3.3.2021 at Dharmasthala. v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses; vi) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for the purpose of investigation. vii) If any of the aforesaid conditions are not followed, the prosecution is at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail.