High Court of Karnataka Grants Bail to Accused in Theft and Arms Act Case — Petitioner Enlarged on Bail with Conditions. Custodial interrogation not required as petitioner is permanent resident with no criminal antecedents; bail granted under Section 439 CrPC for offences under Sections 380, 457, 458, 382, 201 IPC and Section 25(1-A) Arms Act.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Accused
  • 144
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Santosh S/o Hari Kadam, filed a criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to set aside the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Koppal, in Criminal Revision Petition No.21/2021 dated 07.07.2021, which had confirmed the order of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga, in C.C.No.1/2021, rejecting his bail application. The petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.78/2020 registered by Bevoor Police Station, Koppal District, for offences punishable under Sections 380, 457, 458, 382, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959. The brief facts are that the petitioner was prosecuted for these offences. The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, observed that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required and that the petitioner was a permanent resident of Ghatane, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur, Maharashtra, with no criminal antecedents. The court also noted that the trial was likely to take time. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and enlarged the petitioner on regular bail subject to conditions including executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety, appearing before the court regularly, not tampering with prosecution witnesses, and not committing similar offences.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Regular Bail - Petitioner/accused No.1 sought bail for offences under Sections 380, 457, 458, 382, 201 IPC and Section 25(1-A) Arms Act - Court considered that custodial interrogation was not required and that the petitioner was a permanent resident with no criminal antecedents - Held that petitioner is entitled to bail subject to conditions (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner/accused No.1 is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail in Crime No.78/2020 for offences under Sections 380, 457, 458, 382, 201 of IPC and Section 25(1-A) of Arms Act, 1959.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Petition allowed. Impugned orders set aside. Petitioner/accused No.1 enlarged on regular bail in Crime No.78/2020 (C.C.No.01/2021) subject to conditions: executing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety, appearing before court regularly, not tampering with witnesses, and not committing similar offences.

Law Points

  • Bail under Section 439 CrPC
  • Prima facie case
  • Custodial interrogation not required
  • Conditions for bail
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (KAR) (08) 8

Criminal Petition No.101403 of 2021

2021-08-03

Justice Rajendra Badamikar

Sri. Anand R Kolli (for petitioner), Sri. Ramesh B Chigari (HCGP for respondent)

Sri. Santosh S/o. Hari Kadam

The State of Karnataka

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal bail petition under Section 439 CrPC

Remedy Sought

Setting aside of orders rejecting bail and enlargement of petitioner on regular bail

Filing Reason

Petitioner was arrested and his bail applications were rejected by lower courts

Previous Decisions

Bail rejected by Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga in C.C.No.1/2021 dated 24/05/2021, confirmed by Principal Sessions Judge, Koppal in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.21/2021 dated 07/07/2021

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 CrPC

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that custodial interrogation is not required and he is a permanent resident with no criminal antecedents State opposed bail but court found no grounds for continued detention

Ratio Decidendi

Bail should be granted when custodial interrogation is not required and the accused is a permanent resident with no criminal antecedents, and trial is likely to take time.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for setting aside the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Koppal in Criminal Revision Petition No.21/2021 dated 07.07.2021 confirming the order passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga in C.C.No.1/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 457, 458, 382, 201 of IPC and Section 25(I-A) of the Arms Act, 1959. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.1 and he has been prosecuted for the offences...

Procedural History

The petitioner was arrested in Crime No.78/2020. His bail application was rejected by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga on 24/05/2021. He filed a revision petition before the Principal Sessions Judge, Koppal, which was dismissed on 07/07/2021. He then filed the present petition under Section 439 CrPC before the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 439
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 380, 457, 458, 382, 201
  • Arms Act, 1959: 25(1-A)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Company and Contractors Under Contract Labour Act for Lack of Sanction — Prosecution Without Prior Sanction Under Section 34 of CLRA Act is Barred by Law.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Tribunal's Limitation Order in Service Promotion Dispute. Petitioner's claim for promotion from 1992 was barred by limitation as OA filed in 2020 was beyond one year from cause of action.