High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Chandrashekar @ Chandra @ Apal … vs State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2011

Karnataka High Court
Sri Chandrashekar @ Chandra @ Apal … vs State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2011
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana


2

This Criminal Petition Coming for ord.er’S’__tt;:Vi_$«p_

day, the Court made the following:

In this petition filedliinderll

the petitioner who has been__4_lai’tE_1igiied’%e.:3lC§poised No.2
in Crime No.58/ of Police
Station, BaI.1:ga.l_0re'”W the offences
punishable l20~B r/W 34 IPC

has ~ord.ei’–..tole’nlar§e him on bail.

2. “[‘he ‘case of.Vthe5lprosecution in brief is as under:

gpuring of 24/25.3201 1, when the Police

“$l1,ih.~lia,§pe’oto1*., CCB (Organised Crime Wing), Bangalore

‘along staff was on patrolling duty within the

limits Kempegowda Nagar Police Station, he received

credible information that in the back ground of the

.;:group rivalry few persons belonging to one group were

waiting near BBMP Mini Water Tank, opposite to Jinke
Park, T’.R.Mili Main Road, to commit the murder of

Ranganathao Pradeep and Lokesh belonging to rivai

group and immediately on receipt of the informatien

said Police Sub~lnspector along with his

panchas came to the aforesaid place _

them saw about 10 to 12 persons stan’di:rjigl”‘hclding

deadly weapons and all those perseniswere”reignite-d ‘<:s.i_'f.

However, 7 to 8 persorls_V"'*~vgho "had.

escaped from the. Q. place—–W2p1nd._.pA 4" " pe_rsor1s were
apprehended. The" it accused persons
disclosed on the basis of
the persons, the identity of
the This petitioner who
was ciriel of V was arraigned as

accused ll\IoV.2..VV'V-Thereafter on the basis of the report

l5o'li'ee'VInspector, case in Crime No.58/ ll

registered for the aforesaid offences and

was taken up. When the apprehended

pacctised persons and this petitioner were produced

ll –..v"'sefuore the learned Magistrate they were remanded to

ajudicial Custody. l3'rayer of the petitioner herein for

W»,

awr

4

grant of baii came to be rejected by the learned

Judge. Therefore, the petitioner is before _

3. I have heard both sidesul l_Pervu’s_eci’

made available.

4. it is the Contention—oi”p’vthe_learnedeoilinsel for
the petitioner, that at lstalge are no grounds to
believe that of the offences
alleged; v’..;V/)f§’v’f>g11e”remand application
filed l:)ei’opeV.A:the: does not disclose any
allegationof having been involved in any

of the ofi”en(:esV;f_ petitioner is a law abiding

V’ . therefore “r”1e’is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

‘ as per the report lodged by the Police

Sti_b~lnspe’etor, CCB, this petitioner along with 3 others

Aeneas.’ apprehended at about l0./45 pin. on 24.3.2011.

‘g:’E3-ven according to the ease of the prosecution, these

Hpetitioriers and other accused persons were found

gathered there with a eomrnon intention of Committing

the murder est persons belonging to rival group and at
that time they were armed with deadly weapons»._<:l_l"?"i' he

contents of the remand application

learned Magistrate does not indieat_e that"tiiis= };$etitio1i,er'

is involved in any other offenieese',
stage, there are no reasoil1Val;:l.re gro'tindsu that)
the petitioner is a hahitual.—-oiiender. according
to the prosecution, vtilherein during his
Voluntary year 2002 he
was in jagilllllcim easeregistered in Kengeri
he was arraigned as
accused: in in Jayanagara Police

Station for VtiieV'Vofiene'e:l punishable under Section 324

I}5:lC:'lf; no nfiateriai"'"isV produced to prirna faeie establish

'that 'involved in those Cases and he has been

tried said offences. At this stage, having regard

AA to theiaets and circumstances of case I find no prirna

ll -..V"faei'e ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty ef the

-fgoffenees alleged in this ease, the petitioner is not

shewn to be a habitual offender indulging in similar

ft

– «eonlelitiorilsi

6:

activities. The petitioner is showri to be a p€1’€if’§I-£vtf1€fHlL

resident of Shastri Nagara, Bariasha.nl«:e;,;’iwllI’A1:’

Bangalore and he has tmderta_l:eri__to V’

conditions that may be *

Therefore, there is no likelihiomi oflhthe petbitio:rier…f1eeingV.l’

away from justice. Howexfer,._.i;he’~»..a.ppreher1S.i:ori of the
prosecution could l:je,.”2iil.a:yed :l’r3§yVVl”»i.mposing strict

conditions.

6′ is allowed. The
Fgieasled on bail in connection
with ,.ofh Kempegowdanagara Police

Station, lllEa_hgal’ore. subject to the following

or ., ” petitioner shall execute a personal

hond for a sum of Rs.25,000/~ with
two sureties for the like sum to the

satisfaction of the learned Magistrate;

{ii} He shall not intimidate or tamper with
the prosecution ‘v’€l,lLI1€SS€S in any

manner; H

RS/,5 .4

(iii)

(V)

He Shall mark his attendance with the

jurisdictional police an every 109*
2591 of the each Calendar

between 10.00 am. and 2,00 0

disposal of ease;

He shall appear

before the e0uff–§§fith0uf” fa1__iIafie1_

He sha11indAu1g’e0″i~:1_ acts sifnilar

to the one a1I~ege0(‘i’i0ri theV’cAagee’,’_.