1 1. H.Sanjeevappa, S/O. Late Hanumanthappa, Aged About 55
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 14 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7187 OF 2012 BETWEEN : 1. H.Sanjeevappa, S/o. Late Hanumanthappa, Aged about 55 years, Police Sub-Inspector, Gownipalli Police Station, Residing at Gownipalli Police Quarters, Srinivaspur Taluk, Kolar District - 563 135 2. Venkatesh, S/o. B.Narasappa, Aged about 38 years, Police Constable and Police Jeep Driver, Gownipalli Police Station, Residing at Gownipalli Police Quarters, Srinivaspur Taluk, Kolar District -563 135. …Petitioners (By Sri. Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy, Advocate) 2 AND : The State of Karnataka, By Gownapalli police, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore - 560 001. … Respondent (By Sri.B.Raja Subramanya Bhat, Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is Filed Under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.55/2012 of Gownapalli P.S., Kolar, which is registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders on this day, the Court made the following: - ORDER Apprehending their arrest by Gownapalli police in connection with case in Crime No.55/2012 registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC, petitioners, who are the officials of the Police Department, have presented this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking relief of anticipatory bail. The first petitioner is working as Police Sub-Inspector in the Gownapalli Police Station while the second petitioner is 3 working as police constable and driver of the jeep attached to the said police station. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, one G.V.Suman Kumar son of Ramamohanrao resident of Vijaywada in Andhra Pradesh submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Kolar District, Kolar on 28.09.2012 interalia alleging that he and his friend Prithvi Saikumar, both residents of Vijayawada had made a publication in the newspaper ‘Sakshi’ on 24.09.2012 to the effect that they would purchase the Gold pledged in any Banks in respect of which the period for repayment has expired. In response to the said publication, on 25.09.2012 he received a telephone call to his mobile from telephone number 9964503383, disclosing his name as L.Satish Reddy of Madanapalli and informing that he has pledged 220 grams of gold in Punjab National Bank and that he would get the same released, therefore, he asked the complainant to come to Madanappali. Accordingly at about 10.30 a.m. on 26.09.2012, the complainant 4 came to Madanapalli along with cash of Rs.1,50,000/-, contacted said Satish Reddy over mobile and he met said Satish Reddy at about 12.45 p.m. near the bus stand in Madanapalli. At that place, the said Satish Reddy told him that the Punjab National Bank where he has pledged the Gold is in Kashettipalli in Kolar District at a distance of about 30 kilometers from Madanapalli and there is no ATM facility in the said village. Therefore, after asking the complainant as to how much money he possessed, he made the complainant to withdrew a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- from State Bank of Hyderabad ATM at Madanapalli and thereafter, the complainant along with said Satish Reddy travelled in a bus up to Tadigol Cross where they alighted from the bus and from there the complainant was taken in an Autorikshaw to Kashettipalli Cross where these two petitioners came in a police jeep and at that place said Satish Reddy spoke to the sub-Inspector of Police and thereafter they asked the complainant to get into the police jeep. When the complainant questioned as to 5 why he has to sit in the police jeep, he was slapped and threatened and thereafter he was forcibly taken in the police jeep to a distance of about 4 to 5 Kilometers and in a hilly region he was asked to get down. When he refused to get down, he was assaulted on the abdomen with stick, switched off his mobile phone, abused him in filthy language, snatched cash of Rs.3,30,000/- from his possession and thereafter said Satish Reddy by taking out a bundle containing fake gold and by keeping the same in his (complainant’s) hand, took photographs in the mobile camera and from there he was taken to different places and then ultimately he was left on the Main Road and at that place they obtained his signature and LTM on blank papers and returned a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to him. They also threatened him not to disclose the same to anyone lest he would be shooted out in an encounter and from there these two petitioners along with Satish Reddy went away in the Police jeep. 6 3. Though the said complaint was received in the Office of the Superintendent of Police on 28.09.2012, the same was forwarded to the jurisdictional police and the case came to be registered on 09.10.2012. 4. On coming to know of the registration of the case, the petitioners approached the learned Sessions Judge for relief of anticipatory bail. However, the said petition came to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. The petition is opposed by respondent – State. 6. I have heard both the sides. Perused the records made available. 7. No doubt, the petitioners have been arraigned as accused in the case registered by the respondent – police for non-bailable offence. Therefore, apprehension of the petitioners that they are likely to be arrested is well founded. However, the allegations made 7 in the complaint and the other materials available on record, at this stage prima facie indicates the complexity of the petitioners in the commission of the offence alleged. During investigation, the Investigation Officer has collected the information from the Ind-Bank which prima facie indicates that on 26.09.2012, the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- cash from the State Bank of Hyderabad ATM in Madanapalli. The materials available on record, at this stage also prima facie indicates that the Debit Card possessed by the complainant permitted withdrawal of such a huge cash from the ATM. The materials collected during investigation further prima facie indicates that the complainant during investigation identified the petitioners through their photographs. 8. Thus, at this stage, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of the above said offence. The materials on record prima facie indicates that the alleged offence has been committed under the cover of uniform by the police officials. 8 Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. If the petitioners are granted the relief of anticipatory bail, they are likely to threaten the material witnesses. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, petition is rejected. Sd/- JUDGE RS/* .