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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 62014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103356 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

VAKRU @ VAKKADU @ MAHESH

S/O. LATE YANKAPPA

AGE. 19 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER,

R/O. RESIDENT OF BACHANALLI VILAGE,

TQ. AND DIST KOPPAL.

&PETITIONER

(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-580001.

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.,

SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.168/2021

REGISTERED IN MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION, FOR THE

OFFENCES U/S 394 OF IPC, PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE

BEFORE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL.

- 2 -

CRL.P No. 103356 of 2022

THIS

CRIMINAL

PETITION

COMING

ON

FOR

ORDERS

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

MADE

THE

FOLLOWING:

This second successive bail petition is filed by

accused No.2 under Section 439 of The Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to

as the 8Cr.P.C.9, for brevity) seeking bail in Crime

No.168/2021

of

Munirabad

Police

Station,

registered for the offence punishable under Section

394 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred

to as the 8IPC9, for brevity).

2.

It is the case of the prosecution that one

V.A.Raju S/o. Ambanna has filed the complaint

against

unknown

persons

stating

that

on

11.07.2021 at about 8.45 p.m., at the backside of

Vaishnavi Petrol Bunk, the complainant went to

nature call, at that time, some unknown persons

came in a motorcycle and one of them has caught

- 3 -

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

complaint

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 petitioner for the offence under Section

394 of IPC. The petitioner came to be arrested on

12.07.2021 and he was remanded to judicial

custody. The petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.502/2021,

seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Koppal, by order

dated 11.10.2021.

This

petitioner/accused

No.2

along

with

accused Nos.1 and 3 earlier had filed Criminal

Petition No.102034/2021 and the same came to be

- 4 -

rejected by this Court by order dated 18.11.2022.

Thereafter,

this

petitioner

has

filed

Criminal

Petition No.101888/2022 along with accused No.1

seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by

this Court by order dated 13.07.2022 so far as this

petitioner is concerned. Thereafter, this petitioner

has not approached the Sessions Court seeking

bail and has directly filed the present petition

seeking bail.

3.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for

the

petitioner

and

the

learned

High

Court

Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that the petitioner is a permanent resident

of Koppal and photo copy of Aadhar card is

enclosed with this petition. It is his further

submission that photo copy of Aadhar card of his

- 5 -

mother is produced and she is residing in Ballari.

It is his further submission that accused No.1 who

is elder brother of this petitioner has been granted

bail by this Court on medical ground as he was

suffering from HIV. It is his further submission

that as this petitioner was along with his brother-

accused No.1, he also undergone for HIV test and

his report is negative, but the co-prisoners are

suspecting him of being infected with HIV, so he is

kept in separate cell. It is his further submission

that the complainant and other two witnesses have

been examined and they have not supported the

case of the prosecution. The petitioner is aged 19

years, as the charge sheet is filed the petitioner is

not required for custodial interrogation. With this,

he prayed for allowing the petition.

5.

Per

contra,

learned

High

Court

Government Pleader would contend that on earlier

- 6 -

two occasions considering the heinousness of the

offence, involvement of this petitioner, prima facie

case

against

him,

threat

to

the

prosecution

witnesses and committing similar offence, his bail

petition came to be rejected by this Court twice.

It is his further submission that the charge sheet

material shows prima facie case against this

petitioner for the offences alleged against him.

Merely because three prosecution witnesses have

not supported the case of the prosecution, is not a

ground for grant of bail. The petitioner has not

made out any new grounds for grant of bail. With

this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6.

Having regard to the submission made by

learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High

Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone

through the charge s

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top