The criminal petition is filed under section 438 ( special powers of high court Or court of session regarding bail) of Cr.P.C seeking for the enlargement on bail for the offence punishable under section 379 ( punishment for theft)of IPC. And the petition was rejected by the High court of karnataka in the case of Honnappa Durgappa Malagi @ Ravi and Ramesh vs state of Karnataka ( criminal petition no. 485) on 25th January 2022.
Brief facts of the case are that the two petitioners along with juvenile offenders were indulged in committing the offence of theft of vehicles and when the juvenile offenders were apprehended, they revealed the name of these petitioners and hence case has been registered against them and in total 27 cases are booked against the petitioners as well as the juvenile offenders in different crimes in 2021 only.
Arguments presented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that only based on the juvenile offenders’ statement, these petitioners have been arraigned as accused and no recovery is made at the instance of the petitioners. The juvenile offenders gave the information about where they have kept the vehicles and the alleged recovery is made at the instance of the petitioners and these petitioners have not indulged in such offence and hence they may be enlarged on bail.
Arguments presented by the learned high court government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent state that these petitioners have committed 27 crimes in total and all the offences are punishable under Section 379 of IPC and recoveries are also made at the instance of the petitioners. In total three recoveries are made; at the first instance, one vehicle was recovered; at the second instance, three vehicles are recovered; at the third instance, three vehicles are recovered and at the fourth instance, three vehicles are recovered at the instance of these petitioners and there is a prima facie material against these petitioners indulging in committing the offence under section 379 of IPC and the investigation is not yet completed and their presence is required for further investigation.
After hearing both the counsels and looking into the fact of the case that petitioner No.1 is a Police Constable and he indulged with accused No.2 and other juvenile offenders in committing such offences and list of cases which have been stated in the remand application is clear that total 27 cases are registered for the similar offence from the beginning of 2021 till date of arrest of these petitioners. When ten vehicles are recovered at the instance of this petitioner and when the matter is under investigation, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under section 439 of Cr.P.C., that too in favour of a Police Constable, who has to protect the property of the people and he himself indulged in committing the offence of theft of motorcycle along with accused No.2 and juvenile offenders and hence it is not a case for exercising the discretion. According to aforesaid, court rejected the bail petition .
Judgement reviewed by Sugam Anand Mishra