0

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

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

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Open chat