SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 47101

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KOTEPPA ALIAS RAMESH ALIAS CHANTI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P/101888/2022



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.101888/2022

BETWEEN :

1.

KOTEPPA @ RAMESH @ CHANTI

S/O LATE YANKAPPA SINDE

AGE: 36 YEARS

OCC: LABOURER.

2.

VAKRU @ VAKKADU @ MAHESH

S/O LATE YANKAPPA

AGE: 20 YEARS

OCC:LABOURER.

R/O: BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF BOCHANALLI

VILLAGE TQ AND DIST KOPPAL.

… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI B ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)

AND :

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(THROUGH MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION KOPPAL)

REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD – 580 001.

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP)

2

---

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND

ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 AND 2 ON BAIL

IN CRIME No.168/2021 REGISTERED IN MUNIRABAD POLICE

STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 394 OF IPC,

PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE BEFORE PRINCIPAL CIVIL

JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KOPPAL AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH

HEARING/VIDEO

CONFERENCE

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

PASSED THE FOLLOWING;

ORDER

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have filed this petition under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.168/2021

registered in Munirabad Police Station for the offences

punishable under Section 394 of IPC, 1860.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that one V.A.

Raju S/o. Ambanna has filed the complaint against

unknown persons stating that on 11.07.2021 at about

8.45p.m., at the backside of Vaishnavi Petrol Bunk, the

complainant went to nature call, at that time, some

3

unknown persons came in a motorcycle and one of them

has caught hold the hands of complainant tightly and

forcibly snatched red colour karbon company key pad

mobile, mount royal genuine gold colour watch worth

Rs.1,500/- and cash of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant.

The said complainant came to be registered in Crime

No.168/2021 for the offence punishable under Section

394 of IPC. After investigation, the charge sheet has

been filed against the petitioners for the offence under

Section 394 of IPC. The petitioners came to be arrested

on 12.07.2021 and they were remanded to judicial

custody. The petitioners filed Crl.Misc.No.502/2021

seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by

Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Koppal by order dated

11.10.2021.

3.

The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 earlier along with

another have filed Criminal Petition No.102034/2021

4

seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by this

Court vide order dated 18.11.2021.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that thereafter the petitioners have filed bail application

before the Trial Court and which came to be rejected by

order dated 25.03.2022. Therefore, the petitioners are

before this Court seeking bail.

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned HCGP for respondent-State.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that earlier bail petition of the petitioner came to

be rejected by this Court on the ground that they are

nomads and are not having permanent address. Now,

the petitioner No.1 has produced aadhar card of his wife

and mother. His further submission is that the petitioner

No.1 is suffering from HIV and he is under treatment, his

wife is also suffering from HIV and she is also taking

5

treatment and in that regard he has produced patient booklet

(green booklet) issued by KSAPS and NACO. It is his further

submission that even one of the child of petitioner No.1 is also

suffering from HIV. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1

requires treatment in proper hospital. With this, he prayed to

allow the petition.

7.

Per contra, the learned HCGP for respondent-State

would contend that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are involved in

two more criminal cases each and they disclose their names

fictitiously and only on testing finger pri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top