Karnataka High Court Grants Bail to Accused No.12 in Dacoity and Criminal Intimidation Case — Petitioner in Custody Since 01.05.2020, Investigation Completed, No Criminal Antecedents. Court Held That Continued Detention Not Necessary as Investigation Complete and Co-Accused Granted Bail.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 31
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sri Raveesh B.M., accused No.12 in Crime No.8/2020 of Jayapura Police Station, Chikkamagaluru, filed a criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking bail for offences punishable under Sections 395 (dacoity) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The complaint was lodged by one G.C. Vijaya Raghav on 07.03.2020, alleging that on 06.03.2020 at about 10:30 PM, while the complainant and his wife were asleep, they heard barking of dogs and screaming of a person. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody from 01.05.2020. Previously, the petitioner had filed a bail application before the learned I Additional District Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in C.Crl.Misc.No.96/2020, which was dismissed on 05.06.2020. Hence, the present petition was filed. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vijaya Kumar K., and the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) for the respondent, Sri V.S. Vinayaka. The court noted that the investigation was completed and the charge sheet had been filed. The petitioner had no criminal antecedents. Several co-accused had already been granted bail by the Sessions Court. The court found that continued detention of the petitioner was not necessary for investigation purposes. Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner subject to conditions, including executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety, appearing before the court regularly, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving the jurisdiction without prior permission.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Dacoity and Criminal Intimidation - Petitioner-accused No.12 sought bail in Crime No.8/2020 for offences under Sections 395 and 506 IPC - Court granted bail considering petitioner's judicial custody from 01.05.2020, completion of investigation, no criminal antecedents, and parity with co-accused who were granted bail - Held that continued detention is not necessary as investigation is complete and petitioner has no criminal background (Paras 1-12).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner-accused No.12 is entitled to bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Sections 395 and 506 of IPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The petitioner-accused No.12 shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.8/2020 of Jayapura Police Station, Chikkamagaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 395 and 506 of IPC, subject to executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned court. The petitioner shall appear before the court regularly, not tamper with evidence, and not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission.

Law Points

  • Bail under Section 439 CrPC
  • Dacoity under Section 395 IPC
  • Criminal Intimidation under Section 506 IPC
  • Parity with co-accused
  • No criminal antecedents
  • Completion of investigation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 106

Criminal Petition No.3078/2020

2020-07-10

N.K. Sudhindrarao

Sri. Vijaya Kumar K. (for petitioner), Sri. V.S. Vinayaka (HCGP for respondent)

Sri. Raveesh B.M.

State of Karnataka

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner-accused No.12 sought enlargement on bail in Crime No.8/2020 for offences under Sections 395 and 506 IPC.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was in judicial custody from 01.05.2020 and his earlier bail application was dismissed on 05.06.2020.

Previous Decisions

Bail application before I Additional District Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in C.Crl.Misc.No.96/2020 was dismissed on 05.06.2020.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 395 and 506 IPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel argued that investigation is completed, charge sheet filed, petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and co-accused have been granted bail. Respondent's HCGP opposed the bail application.

Ratio Decidendi

Bail should be granted when investigation is complete, charge sheet filed, petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and co-accused have been granted bail, as continued detention is not necessary for investigation.

Judgment Excerpts

The petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner –accused No.12 seeks grant of bail in Crime No.8/2020 for the offences punishable under sections 395 and 506 of IPC. The petitioner is in Judicial Custody from 01.05.2020. The date of complaint is 07.03.2020. Previously, the petitioner had made application before the learned I Additional District Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in C.Crl.Misc.No.96/2020 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. that came to be dismissed on 05.06.2020. The complaint in this case is lodged by one G.C.Vijaya Raghav it is dated 07.03.2020. The substance of the complaint as could be seen from the record is that on 06.03.2020 at about 10.30 P.M. the complainant Vijaya Raghav and his wife Asha at about 12.30 midnight when they were asleep, they heard the barking of dogs and screaming of a person. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Several co-accused have been granted bail by the Sessions Court. Continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

Procedural History

Complaint lodged on 07.03.2020. Petitioner arrested and in judicial custody from 01.05.2020. Bail application before Sessions Court (C.Crl.Misc.No.96/2020) dismissed on 05.06.2020. Present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on 10.07.2020 and allowed.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 439
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 395, 506
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal of Convict in Rape of Minor Case — Victim's Testimony Found Credible. Conviction under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act upheld as medical evidence and prompt FIR corroborate victim's account.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Invalidation of OBC Caste Certificate in Zilla Parishad Election Case. Caste Claim of Momin Community Rejected Due to Lack of Documentary Evidence and Inconsistent School Records Under Maharashtra Act ...