The law is not a ‘one size fits all’ solution” – Examining the Role of Judicial Discretion with reference to Exploring a Bail Petition under Section 439 of CrPC: Karnataka High Court
Shashikant alias Pintya S/O Tirthappa … vs The State Of Karnataka
Bench: Hon’ble Ashok S. Kinagi
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case presented is Criminal Petition No.200342 of 2023 filed by Shashikant alias Pintya, who is seeking bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case is pending before the V Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and First Class Magistrate in Kalaburagi. Shashikant alias Pintya is accused of committing a robbery under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
According to the prosecution’s case, on 13th March 2023, Sadik filed a written complaint against Anil Pujari and others with the Sub-Urban Police Station. On the basis of the complaint, the police registered the case in Crime No.77/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. The complainant alleged that he had rented out a house to Anil Pujari, who stopped paying rent after making an initial payment of Rs.5,000. The complainant removed Anil Pujari and his wife from the house, after which Anil Pujari developed animosity towards the complainant. The complainant came across a girl named Pallavi on Instagram, and they started chatting. On 2nd March 2023, the complainant purchased a new motorcycle and went to Bandenawaz Darga, Kalaburago with Sameer S/o Noor Ahmed Laskari. While they were there, Anil Pujari and 5-6 other persons arrived in an auto rickshaw and motorcycle. They threatened the complainant with a knife, chopper, and iron rod, and took the key to his motorcycle. They then took him and Sameer in the auto towards Aland road, abused them in filthy language, and assaulted them.
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a delay in filing the FIR against Shashikant alias Pintya and that there were no allegations against him in regards to overt acts. He further submitted that Shashikant alias Pintya had been falsely implicated in the criminal case and that there was no motive for him to commit the alleged offence. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14th March 2023, and the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought his release on bail on these grounds.
The learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, arguing that the allegations against Shashikant alias Pintya were serious and that he was a flight risk. Furthermore, the learned High Court Government Pleader argued that the investigation was still ongoing and that Shashikant alias Pintya could potentially interfere with the investigation.
The Hon’ble Mr Justice Ashok S. Kinagi considered the submissions of both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. The Hon’ble Judge noted that the allegations against Shashikant alias Pintya were serious and that the investigation was still ongoing. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Judge noted that Shashikant alias Pintya had been in judicial custody since 14th March 2023. Taking all these factors into consideration, the Hon’ble Judge denied the petitioner’s request for bail.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREEYA S SHEKAR