Court allows bail to the petitioner convicted by lower court on dacoity: Karnataka High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.258 2022 BETWEEN: ABDUL RAZAK @ RAZAK S O LATE IQBAL PASHA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R AT NO.18 15 NEWTOWN NEAR T.V. STATION KUPPAM CHITTOOR ANDHRA PRADESH 517004. ...PETITIONER BY SRI M. KRISHNE GOWDA ADVOCATE) STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY CUBBON PARK P.S. REPTD BY HIGH COURT GOVT. PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE 560001. ...RESPONDENT BY SRI H.S. SHANKAR HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.32442 2021) OF CUBBON PARK POLICE BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 75 341 342 364A 395 201 120B OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ACMM BANGALORE. 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.73 2021 of Cubbon Park Police Station Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 75 341 342 364A 395 201 and 120B 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 of the prosecution is that on 23.08.2021 the accused persons have committed the offence of dacoity and snatched the money from the complainant and out of that an amount of Rs.10 000 was transferred in favour of the petitioner and hence he has been arraigned as accused No.8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner was the convict and the said order was passed on 28.05.2018 and when he was in custody the question of transferring the money in favour of the petitioner does not arise. The learned counsel submits that no such money of Rs.10 000 is transferred in favour of the petitioner. Per contra learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State would submit that the material collected by the Investigating Officer discloses that an amount of Rs.10 000 is transferred to the account of the petitioner and hence there is a prima facie case against the Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State the only allegation against the petitioner is that he has received an amount of Rs.10 000 and hence he has been arraigned as accused No.8. Whether the amount of Rs.10 000 was transferred out of the amount which was robbed from the complainant is a matter of trial and the same has to be tested in trial. Having taken note of the factual aspects of the case and when the petitioner is in custody and he is a convict and having taken note of the gravity of the allegations made against the petitioner that he had received an amount of Rs.10 000 out of robbed amount I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner and he is a convict cannot be a ground to reject his bail application and the Court has to take note of the material collected against the petitioner in this case and except the allegation of he has received the amount of Rs.10 000 no other material. 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.73 2021 of Cubbon Park Police Station Bengaluru the offence punishable under Sections 75 341 342 364A 395 201 and 120B of IPC subject to the following conditions: The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2 00 000 with one local surety and one surety of a person from Andhra Pradesh 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: The petition is filed under section 439 of CR.P.C ( speaks about special powers of the high court or court of secession regarding bail) seeking regular bail for the offence punishable under section 75( speaks about person conceived a second of an offence punishable under chapter 12 or chapter 17 of the code), 341 ( speaks about punishment for wrongful restraint), 342 ( speaks about punishment for wrongful confinement), 364A ( whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death), 395( punishment for dacoit ), 201( causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false to screen offenders) and 120B of IPC ( speaks about whoever party to criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death) by the petitioner/accused . And the petition is allowed by the High court of Karnataka through the learned bench led by the Honourable MR. Justice H.P. sandesh in case between Abdul Razak vs state of Karnataka( criminal petition no 258/2022) on 20th January 2022. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.08.2021, the accused persons have committed the offence of dacoity and snatched the money from the complainant and out of that, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was transferred in favour of the petitioner and hence he has been arraigned as accused No.8. Arguments presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was the convict and the said order was passed on 28.05.2018 and when he was in custody, the question of transferring the money in favour of the petitioner does not arise. The learned counsel submits that no such money of Rs.10,000/- is transferred in favour of the petitioner. Arguments presented by theLearned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State said that the material collected by the Investigating Officer discloses that an amount of Rs.10,000/- is transferred to the account of the petitioner and hence there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. After hearing both the counsels and looking into the records presented before the Honourable court by them that the allegation made against the petitioner, that he has received an amount of rupees 10,000/- and hence he has been arraigned as accused No.8. Whether the amount of Rs.10,000/- was transferred out of the amount which was robbed from the complainant is a matter of trial and the same has to be tested in trial. Looking into the factual aspects of the case and when the petitioner was in custody and being a convict and having taken note of the gravity of the allegations made against the petitioner that he had received and amount of Rs.10,000/- out of robbed amount, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner and he being a convict cannot be a ground to reject his bail application and the Court has to take note of the material collected against the petitioner in this case and except the allegation of he has received the amount of Rs.10,000/-, no other material. And the petition is allowed by the court that the petitioner shall be released on bail on certain grounds such as: The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with one local surety and one surety of a person from Andhra Pradesh 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. Click here to read the judgement Judgement Reviewed by Sugam Anand Mishra