HC grants bail to the convict of section 397 R/w section 34 of IPC on certain grounds: Karnataka High Court

The criminal petition is filed under section 437 of CrPC by the petitioner/accused praying to get enlargemebt on bail for the offence punishable under section 397( speaks about at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years) read with 34 of IPC ( which speaks about act done by several persons in futhernce of common intention) . 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 the case Puttaraju vs state of Handanakere police station ( criminal petition 142/2022)on 20th January 2022.

Brief facts of the case are that on 15.06.2016 at about 11.00 a.m., when C.W.1 was standing, accused nos.1 to 4 came in two motorcycles and snatched the chain from her neck weighing about 35 grams and subsequently when accused no.2 was apprehended, he gave the statement that on 15.06.2016, accused Nos.1 to 3 snatched the gold chain and the same was pledged with Attica Gold Company and the same was recovered.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that another case was registered against this petitioner and he was taken to custody by issuing body warrant in Crime no.61/2016 and in this case he has been falsely implicated and from column No.17 of the charge-sheet it is clear that accused No.2 has stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 went in motorcycle and snatched the gold chain and there is no mention of accused No.4 and hence he has been falsely implicated in the case.

On the other hand , learned High court government pleader from the respondent side states that other cases are also registered against the petitioner and he has been secured by issuance of body warrant and he is a habitual offender and hence there is a prima facie case against the petitioner.

After hearing both the counsels and on perusal of the material available on record presented by their learned counsels particularly column No.17 of the chargesheet, it is the Case of the prosecution to which accused No.2 gave statement on 28.05.2021 that accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the offence on 15.06.2016 by snatching the gold chain weighing 33 grams, which was pledged in Attica Gold Company and also recovery was made, but there is no material against the petitioner that he had indulged in snatching the chain and pledging the same.

Taking note of the column No.17 of the charge-sheet, accused no.2 made the statement on 28.05.2021, wherein also he has stated only against accused Nos.1 to 3. When such being the factual aspects of the case, mere registration of other case against the petitioner cannot be a ground to reject the bail petition, unless prima facie case is made out in this case and no such prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.

After hearing both the counsels and facts and records presented before the Honourable court by learned counsels , court allowed the petition that the petitioner shall be released on bail , but 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 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.

Click here to read the judgement

Judgement Reviewed by Sugam Anand Mishra


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *