IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

CRIMINAL PETITION No.100676/2021

BETWEEN:

MR. TIPPUSULTAN ALIAS MUNNA,

S/O MABUSAB KOTBAL,

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

OCC AGRICULTURE,

R/OO HOLEALUR VILLAGE,

TQ RON, DIST GADAG.

…PETITIONER

(BY SHRI ARAVIND D.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

THROUGH MURGOD POLICE STATION,

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

DHARWAD.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)

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

SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE THE

PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAIL IN MURGOD POLICE

STATION CRIME NO.271/2020 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2

ORDER

The petitioner/accused No.2 in this petition

seeks to enlarge him on bail in Cr.No.271/2020

registered by the respondent-police for an offence

punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

2.

Heard both side.

3.

In the complaint lodged by Smt.Shaila

Manjunath Tumbaramatti, it is alleged that a sum

of Rs.2,00,000/- was obtained as loan by the

complainant and her husband from their relative, a

resident of Gonnagar village and as he was

requesting them to return the amount, they had

pledged

their

gold

ornaments

at

Manapurram

Finance and availed a loan of Rs.1,30,000/- and

thereafter, mobilized another sum of Rs.20,000/-.

Thereafter, on the morning of 23.12.2020, she

along with her husband were proceeding in a

motor-cycle towards Gonnagar village to repay the

hand loan to their relative and while they were

3

proceeding

via

Yeragatti-Katakol

road,

her

husband stopped the vehicle for attending the call

of nature. At that time, one person came and

asked as to where that road leads to and in the

meanwhile, 4 persons came in a white car and got

down and started quarrelling with the said person.

It is alleged that those persons diverted the

attention of the complainant and her husband and

took

the

plastic

carry

bag

containing

Rs.1,50,000/- and fled away in the car.

4.

It is the contention of the learned

counsel for petitioner that as per the further

statement recorded, the complainant knew the

present

petitioner,

as

such,

not

naming

the

present petitioner in the FIR creates suspicion in

the prosecution case regarding the complicity of

the petitioner in the alleged crime. He submits

that petitioner has been arrested and interrogated

and

he

is

not

required

for

any

further

4

investigation. He is ready to abide by the

conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

Accordingly, seeks to allow the petition.

5.

Per

contra,

learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader

contends

that

the

investigation is still in progress and in the Test

Identification

Parade,

the

complainant

has

identified accused 1 and 2. Therefore, he submits

that there is a prima facie case against the

petitioner and seeks to reject the petition.

6.

The FIR is registered against unknown

persons for an offence punishable under Section

420 of IPC. It is the contention of the learned

counsel

for

petitioner

that

according

to

the

complainant, in her further statement, she has

stated that she knew the petitioner even prior to

the date of incident and therefore, failure to

mention the name of the petitioner, if he was

actually involved in the offence in the FIR creates

5

a doubt. Petitioner was arrested on 19.02.2021

and he has been interrogated. Learned High Court

Government Pleader has submitted that a motor-

cycle has been seized at the instance of the

petitioner. The Test Identification Parade is also

conducted. Petitioner is not required for any

further investigation. The involvement of the

petitioner in the alleged offence is a ma