High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Mithun @ Thithilli vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2011

Karnataka High Court
Sri Mithun @ Thithilli vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2011
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana


2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING Foe ‘QREERS
oN THIS DAY? THE COURT MADE: THE FoLLex.v:gNo:

The petitioner has been agxgjralgfzecli ‘ae”.V;’\.§§e%4gee’d ‘

No.10 in Crime No. 135/ 10 “‘A1nr1Jj:l5; ‘j15e’:;e’¢’eV_

Station (C.C.No.5328/20l’V{3}.:._:’e:l the CMM.,V
Bangalore. He al0ng_.’fW1’thh has
been accused of the offences
pun:sha1.31;§–.}lf«;}¥g§1::§§;f and 397 of IPC.
afl”1_’e”‘e”ase of the petitioner, on
O7 p.m., when CW.1 ~–V1kram

Slngh, Sla/”o.V_V’Ch_anelrabéln Singh along with CW.2–Kishore

. A N-.l:’Re’ddy,’wae efahding in front of Yashaswini Building,

“.4’5’ “J3_}.1axranesh&Vari Nagar, Hebbal, Kempapura,

AB,angaloVfe;l at the instance of Accused No.l~Girish @

he Girl, who had been lodged in central prison,

“Bangalore, Accused Nos. 2 to ?, came there in a

vehicle? forcibly abducted CW1 and by assaulting him

with dangerous weapon and by eausmg severe injuries,

robbed cash ef R:e.4{LLO€}C%/- and tool: away the gold

‘”‘”~».

gal
\\

3

ornaments worth Rs.3,5{),C’vC)O/ ,»« worn by him. the

further ease of the prosecution _th.e

eornniission of the offence, the petitionerhereiri’; as tpetj

the instructions of Accused
to 7 to Mysore in hie’
registration heigped those
accused persons to the reach
of the police to deliver the
cash of 1, who was in jail
through eentral prison, from near
the {gate :’ofV'”pris”on. During investigation of
the ceis*e_V,tt herein was arrested on

Enid ____ since then he has been in judicial

V prayer made by the petitioner before the

itrletéirnedvdfgerésions Judge for grant of bail came to be

rejected. Therefore, the petitioner has presented thie

u _peA”f:iti0n seeking an order to enlarge him on bail,

3} I have heard Sri. Padrnanabha Mahaie, the
learned eoiinsei Senier Counset appearing for the

petitioner and Sri G3′./i. Srinivasa Reddyi HCGP

gt
ii???”

1 -‘5

4
appearing for the R€iSpO1’1Cl€i’I1l}~Sfaf€. Perf_asse:i_l’~V.the

records made available.

4) It is the submissieh sflithe-s_leari:1égi~,_Se;’iier ‘

Counsel that even from stih.e.V evitleiiee
investigation and clhafgellsheet, it is
clear that the petitieherg participated in
the alleged sffeiice and also
the since the allegation
againsts, of helping the other

8.CC1ii’S’€Cl: ‘l themselves away from the
reach them to Mysore in his car,

stage;””th.e_rev are no reasonable grounds to believe

‘ ijetitioner is guilty of any of the offenses

‘ all

_ egeé;’le:£_herefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief

of bail; Petition is opposed by the prosecution.

5} As noticed supra, the alleged acts of
abcluetien, and robbery by assaulting the victim with
dangerous weapon are all attributed against Accused

l\ls_ 2 ta 7, The eiiijy’ allegation made against ‘

5

petitioner is that, he being the owner of Maruthijijar, as

usual, at the instructions of Accused

Accused Nos. 2 to 7 for keeping themselfife-sg fi*o*njiI

the reach of the police by ”

Car to Mysore and after at’ coupleiof”days;’bi<oiight;

back to Bangalore thereaft_ei*,’: he made
arrangements to _Rs.3,H5V(Al,OOO/~v to
Accused Noll; prison at
Bangalolffi this contention,
the _ relies only on the
Voltlntary to have been made by the
petitionetliefein: not an admissible evidence to

gtiieg relief «o.f_b.ail to him. In this View of the matter,

the petitioner is guilty of any of the

offences punishable under Sections 364(A), 365 and

. of ipc.

6} Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the ease and the nature of the

evidence available on record, at this stage, i find no

7%;

L33″

6

basis for the apprehension of the prosecution the

petitioner is likely to flee away from justic:e*-orVi.ta:in_per

the prosecution witnesses. In any. tlileu

apprehension of the proseeution:_-Aeof:ildp.’pe”–.allayerl,: ‘

imposing strict eonditiorié. =.._ln tliisllview”of_the iriatteifi.

the petitioner is entitled for_tli-e:_r*elief of V}

7) In the it allowed. The
petitioner on bail in Crime
No. 135/ Vt tor Police Station
of CMM., Bangalore), on
his for a sum of Rs.l30O,OOQ / –

(Rupees Ciie only) with two sureties for the like»

“tl:ie satisfaction of the learned Magistrate/

” ._ “S_eseior_:e__ Jltaiilge and also subject to further conditions

tl’1at.<f: ' '

" all 'lithe petitioners shall not tamper or terrorise

1'.

the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

ii) the petitioners shall not indulge in any acts

similar to the one alleged against them;

iii} the petitioner shall appear before the Court
on all the dates of hearing witlioiit fail

g 9

7

W} the petitioner shall mark his attendance
the jurisdictional Police Station on
Tuesday and Friday, between 10.00 5 .
2.00 pm. till the Con<:1us10r1 of thtz trial.

KGR*

nfi