Puttaraju @ Putta vs State By
2022 Latest Caselaw 540 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9971/2021

BETWEEN:

1.     PUTTARAJU @ PUTTA
       S/O GIDDAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

2.     ANANDAPPA
       S/O LATE GANGAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

3.     NAGARAJU
       S/O LATE NAGAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

       ALL RESIDING AT
       CHIKKABENNUR VILLAGE
       SANTHEBENNUR HOBLI
       DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577552.            ... PETITIONERS

             (BY SRI MANJUNATH A, ADVOCATE)
AND:

STATE BY
HALEBEEDU POLICE
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001.                             ... RESPONDENT

                (BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S, HCGP)
                                2



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.167/2021 (C.C.NO.1113/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., BELUR)
REGISTERED BY HALEBEEDU POLICE STATION, HASSAN, FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 380 AND 454 OF
IPC.

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
'THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking

regular bail of the petitioners in C.C.No.1113/2021 pending

before the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC., Belur, for the

offences punishable under Sections 380 and 454 of IPC

registered by Halebeedu Police in Crime No.167/2021.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent/ State.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 22.09.2021,

a case has been registered stating that when the complainant

and his wife have locked their house from 03.09.2021 to

21.09.2021 and went to see his son, who is having bakery at

Andhra Pradesh, a theft had been committed. It was noticed by

them on 21.09.2021 and found that tiles of the roof were

removed and on search they found 30 grams of gold chain and

35 grams of gold necklace worth of Rs.2,60,000/- were missing.

The police have investigated the matter and recovery made at

the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. After completion of the

investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would submit that the offences invoked against the petitioners

are under Sections 380 and 434 of IPC and the same are not

punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The only reason

assigned by the Trial Court is that there are several cases

against the petitioners. Hence, they are not entitled for bail.

The learned counsel also would submit that mere registration of

cases against the petitioners cannot be a ground to reject the

bail petition. When the investigation has been completed and the

recovery already made, the custodial trial is not required.

Hence, they may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the recovery

is made at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. Apart from

that, the learned counsel would submit that there are 10 cases

against these petitioners from the years 2016, 2017, 2020 and

2021. The petitioners are habitual offenders and the offences are

also similar in nature. The Trial Court also while considering the

factual aspects of the case taken note of the modus operandi of

the petitioners herein i.e., committing theft in the house. Hence,

they are not entitled for bail.

6. Having heard the respective counsel and the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners not disputes the fact that

the registration of the cases against the petitioners herein from

2016 to 2021. In the case on hand also recovery was made at

the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 and the stolen articles were

recovered. When there are ten cases against the petitioners that

too for the similar offences and the very contention that no

recovery at the instance of accused No.3 cannot be a ground to

enlarge them on bail. When they are habitual offenders and if

they are enlarged on bail by exercising the discretion in favour of

the petitioners, there is likelihood of committing the similar

offences.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi v. State of Uttar

Pradesh and another reported in (2012) 2 SCC 382, and

brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.10, wherein,

the Apex Court has observed that most of the cases ended in

acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial and it is

the duty of the court to find out the role of the accused in the

case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such

as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the court.

No doubt, it is settled law that while exercising the discretion by

granting bail, the Court has to look into the possibility of fleeing

away from justice. But in the case on hand, similar offences are

committed by the petitioners in total 10 cases are registered and

not only just prior to registration of this case and the cases are

registered from 2016 onwards and the petitioners are indulged in

committing similar offences. When such being the case, the

judgment quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not

applicable to the facts of the case on hand and discretion cannot

be exercised in favour of the petitioners.

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The bail petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cp*