High CourtsSingle Bench

Sri Krishna @ E.N. Krishna and Sri Javaregowda vs State

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 2 December 2011 · Citation: (2011) 12 KAR CK 0242

HON’BLE JUDGES
H. Billappa, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 394
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 6250 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 500 words

H. Billappa

1.

The petitioners have filed this petition u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail.

2.

It is stated in the petition, the petitioners have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners are ready to abide by all conditions that may be imposed. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

3.

It is alleged, that on 24.10.2011, when the complainant was driving lorry hearing No. KA 09-B-3270 from Mysore to Thondebhavi, at about 9.00 PM about 6 KMs away from Pandavapura three persons came in a bike and stopped the vehicle. They dragged the complainant from the vehicle and assaulted him. One more person joined them. They took away stepny and Rs. 500/- from the complainant. A case in crime No. 471/2011 of Pandavapura police station has been registered for the offence punishable u/s 394 IPC.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them and they have been falsely implicated in the case. He also submitted that A-1 and A-2 have been granted bail and therefore, petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail.

5.

As against this, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the investigation is going on and the petitioners are required for investigation and serious allegations have been made and therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted anticipatory bail. He also submitted that at the instance of A-1 and A-2 stepny and Rs. 500/- have been recovered.

6.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.

The point that arises for my consideration is;

Whether the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail?

8.

It is relevant to note, the allegations are that on 24.10.2011, when the complainant was proceeding from Mysore to Thondebhavi, at about 9.00 PM about 6 KMs away from Pandavapura three persons came in a bike and stopped the vehicle. They dragged the complainant from the vehicle and assaulted him. One more person joined them. They took away stepny and Rs. 500/- from the complainant. At the instance of A-1 and A-2 stepny and Rs. 500/- have been recovered. A-1 and A-2 have been granted bail. Therefore, the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions.

9.

Accordingly, petition is allowed and the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions.

i) In the event of their arrest in Or. No, 471/2011 of Pandavapura Police Station, the petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs. .20,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

ii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within five clays from today and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer for further investigation, if necessary.

iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with the witnesses.

iv) If the petitioners violate any condition, the respondent-State can move for cancellation of the Bail.