Court grants bail to the petitioner with the reason that the petitioner did not have criminal antecedent as well as the offence was also not committed: Karnataka High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.428 2022 BETWEEN: SRINIVASA @ SEENA S O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R O 1ST CROSS SHANKARAPURA MANDYA 571401. STATE BY MANDYA RURAL POLICE MANDYA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 560001. ...PETITIONER BY SRI RAJU C.N. ADVOCATE) ...RESPONDENT BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S. HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.514 2021 REGISTERED BY MANDYA RURAL POLICE STATION MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 399 AND 402 OF IPC. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.514 2021 of Mandya Rural Police Station Mandya for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.5 and it is the contention that on credible information received on 24.12.2021 at about 8.15 p.m. that some persons were preparing to commit dacoity near Bhoomisiddeshwara Temple immediately the police secured the panchas and went to the spot and apprehended the petitioner and other accused and they were having aluminium hand stick two sticks two dragger and one chilly powder packet and case has been registered and matter is under investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as accused No.5 and there are no any criminal antecedents against the petitioner and the only allegation is that they were making preparation to commit dacoity and not committed any offence. Per contra the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State submits that on credible information the petitioner and other accused persons were apprehended and they were making an attempt to commit dacoity and they were making preparation and the matter is under investigation. Having heard the respective learned counsel and taking note of the allegations made in the complaint as well as the gravity of the offence no offence was committed except making preparation to commit dacoity and there are no any criminal antecedents against the petitioner. Hence it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail. In view of the discussions made above I pass the The petition is allowed. Consequently the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.514 2021 of Mandya Rural Police Station Mandya for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC subject to the following The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2 00 000 with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of. Sd 

Summary: Criminal petition is filed under section 439 of C.R.P.C ( Special powers of high court or court of session regarding bail) for the enlargement on for the offence punishable under section 399 ( Making preparation to commit dacoity )and 402 of IPC ( Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity) by the petitioner. And the petition was allowed by the High court of Karnataka through the learned bench led by the Honorable MR. Justice H P Sandesh in the case of Srinivasa @ Seena vs state of Karnataka ( criminal appeal no. 428/2022) on 25th January 2022. Brief facts of the case are that  the petitioner is arraigned as accused and it is the contention that on credible information received on 24th December 2021 at about 8.15 p.m., that some persons were preparing to commit dacoity near Bhoomisiddeshwara Temple, immediately the police secured the panchas and went to the spot and apprehended the petitioner and other accused and they were having aluminium hand stick, two sticks, two dragger and one chilly powder packet and case has been registered and matter is under investigation. Arguments presented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as accused No.5 and there are no any criminal antecedents against the petitioner and the only allegation is that they were making preparation to Commit dacoity and not committed any offence. Arguments presented by the learned High court government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent state that on credible information, the petitioner and other accused persons were apprehended and they were making an attempt to commit dacoity and they were making preparation and the matter is under investigation. After hearing both the councils and looking into the contents of the case and taking note of the case as well as gravity of the offence that no offence was committed except making preparation to commit dacoity and there are no any criminal antecedents against the petitioner. Hence , the petition was allowed by the court on certain grounds such as: The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses; The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause; The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against him is disposed of.