Heard Shri Rajesh Doddamani, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Shri Sharanabasappa M.Patil, learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent / State.

The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime

No.12/2023 of Ashoknagar Police Station, Kalaburagi, wherein

the alleged offences are punishable under Sections 395, 504,

506 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and under Section

25(1)(A) of Arms Act, 1959.

2.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

A complaint came to be lodged by the complainant on

10.02.2023, at about 12.30 a.m., stating that, on 15.01.2023

on Sunday at about 3.30 p.m., one Sharanabasappa s/o.

Dhulappa / accused No.2 had been to the house of the

complainant for hiring the car of the complainant and they took

the complainant along with his car to an isolated place. There

accused Nos.1 and his associates were there. After seeing the

complainant, the accused No.1 abused the complainant in filthy

language and assaulted on the cheeks and also threatened that

the car should be given to them whenever they wanted and

- 3 -

scolded. Thereafter, the accused No.1 took out the pistol and

pointed to the fore-head of the complainant and snatched

Rs.12,000/- from the complainant. In addition to the said

threatening, the complainant received the beatings all over the

body by other accused persons. When he screamed for help,

Shri Santhosh s/o. Nijalingappa Marthur and Shri Santhosh

Kumar came and pacified the matter. It is further stated in the

complaint that after receiving the beatings from the accused,

the complainant became unconscious and he was shifted to his

house by somebody. As such, complaint came to be lodged by

him and the case came to be registered, as stated supra.

3.

Shri Rajesh Doddamani, learned counsel for the

petitioner, reiterated the averments of the petition submitting

that the accused No.1 is innocent of the alleged offences and

he has been falsely implicated in the case. The jurisdictional

police, on one or other pretext, are giving lot of trouble to the

petitioner

since

the

petitioner

is

a

rowdy-sheeter,

unnecessarily, his name in other cases being implicated to

harass the petitioner.

- 4 -

4.

It is further submitted that the petitioner is the

resident of Sharanasirasige Maddi Village of Kalaburagi and he

will abide all the conditions that would be imposed by this

Court, in the event of his release on bail. Further, learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the Arms

Act is invoked in this case, no such weapons have been seized

as alleged in the complaint. It shows that the respondent /

Police have deliberately implicated the said provision to depict

him as a rowdy-sheeter. Making such submissions, learned

counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

5.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

vehemently opposed the bail petition stating that the alleged

offence is heinous in nature. The petitioner is a rowdy-sheeter

and he is terrorizing the area and used to commit similar

offences one after the other. It is further submitted that there

are three cases have been registered against the petitioner and

he has been considered as ‘A category rowdy-sheeter’. If the

bail is granted, certainly he will commit similar offences in

future and also terrorizing the Society at large. Making such

submission, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to

reject the bail petition.

- 5 -

6.

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and

also perused the documents on record. When this Court asked

the learned High Court Government Pleader to submit the

status of the investigation and also keep the Investigating

Officer present before the Court, the learned High Court

Government Pleader made the Investigating Officer be present

before the Court. On question being asked to the Investigating

Officer regarding the investigation, the Investigating Officer

submitted that the voluntary statement of the petitioner has

not been recorded