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