Karnataka High Court

T Nagendra vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2024

                                                              -1-
                                                                          NC: 2024:KHC:44820
                                                                      CRL.P No. 3239 of 2024




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                         DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                                                             BEFORE
                                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
                                            CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3239 OF 2024
                                 BETWEEN:

                                 T NAGENDRA
                                 S/O KRISHNAPPA,
                                 AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
                                 R/AT NO.02, 1ST B CROSS,
                                 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST STAGE,
                                 AMBABAHVANI NAGAR,
                                 BANGALORE - 560 097.
                                                                                ...PETITIONER
                                 (BY SRI. SANMUKH REDDY, ADVOCATE )

                                 AND:
                                 STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                                 BY VIDYARANYAPURA P.S,
                                 REPRESENTED BY
                                 THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                                 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                 BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                                                               ...RESPONDENT
                                 (BY SRI.VENKATA SUBRAMANYA.,HCGP ADVOCATE )
Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI
BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                                      THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC BY THE
                                 ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE
                                 ABOVE NAMED PETITIONER IN S.C.NO.685/2023, ORIGINATED IN
                                 CR.NO.215/2022 OF RESPONDENT VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE
                                 STATION, FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 392, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC,
                                 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
                                 SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-66) IN S.C.NO.685/2023,
                                 ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THE ABOVE CASE.

                                      THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
                                 JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
                                 COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               -2-
                                              NC: 2024:KHC:44820
                                       CRL.P No. 3239 of 2024




CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA



                       CAV JUDGMENT

This criminal petition is filed by accused No.1 under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to grant bail in Crime

No.215/2022 of Vidyaranyapura Police station and

S.C.No.685/2023 pending on the file of LXV Additional City

Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-66).

2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner as well as learned High Court

Government Pleader.

3. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are charge sheeted for the

offences punishable under Sections 392, 302 and 120B read

with Section 34 of IPC. The allegation against the accused

are that accused No.1 was observing movements of the

deceased Smt.Prasanna Kumari a senior citizen who was

residing alone in a rented house at 2nd floor situated at Amba

Bavani Nagar, coming within the jurisdiction of

Vidyaranyapura Police station. Accused No.1 was residing in

the neighboring building. The deceased Smt. Prasanna

NC: 2024:KHC:44820

Kumari was wearing several gold ornaments while going

outside. Looking at the same, accused No.1 intended to rob

the said gold ornaments from her. He hatched a plan to rob

the same. Accused Nos.2 and 3, were residents of a town in

State of Andhra Pradesh. Accused No.2 had borrowed some

money from him. Accused No.1 forced him to repay the

same and explained his plan to kill the said lady and rob the

valuables belonging to her. Accused No.2 agreed to

implement the plan so that he can repay the loan obtained to

Accused No.1. Accused No.3 is friend of Accused No.1 and he

took help of Accused No.3.

4. Both Accused Nos.2 and 3 came to Bengaluru.

Accused No.1 took a room in Green Leaf Comfort lodge and

paid rent for the same. On 07.09.2022, between 7.00 p.m.

to 8.00 p.m, accused Nos.2 and 3 as per the plan prepared

by accused No.1 criminally trespassed in to the house of

Smt.Prasanna Kumari, murdered her and robbed her gold

ornaments. Thereafter, as per the instructions of accused

No.1, accused No.2 pledged the said gold ornaments in

Muthoot Finance at Raayachooti Branch of Andhra Pradesh

NC: 2024:KHC:44820

and obtained loan of Rs.1,90,000/-. The said amount was

shared by accused Nos.1 to 3. On the complaint of

neighbour of Smt.Prasanna Kumari, the case in

Cr.No.215/2022 was registered on 08.09.2022 by

Vidyaranyapura Police. It was investigated and all the three

accused were charge sheeted for the above said offences.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

accused No.1 is innocent and there are no materials to

connect the accused with the guilt. He has been falsely

implicated in this case by the police. No materials were

seized from him and in addition to that accused No.2 was

released on bail by this Court; On the ground of parity, the

petitioner is also entitled for bail, Accused would offer

solvent surety and abide the conditions imposed by the

court. With these reasons prayed to allow the petition.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits

that after thorough investigation of the matter, Investigating

Officer has submitted the charge sheet. There are sufficient

materials to connect accused No.1 with the incident which

are stated in the charge sheet of enclosures. At the time of

NC: 2024:KHC:44820

grant of bail, this court need not hold a mini trial to consider

whether the said materials are sufficient to convict the

accused or not. Accused No.1 has filed application for bail

before the trial court as well as this Court. Both courts

rejected his applications. Even he moved the application

before the Hon'ble Apex Court for grant of bail, that was

rejected which was noted in the orders passed by the trial

court. There are no changed circumstances to re-consider

the bail application.

7. The Learned High Court Government Pleader

further submits that role of accused No.2 is totally different

from accused No.1. accused No.2 was only an instrument in

the hands of accused No.1. Accused No.1 is the master

mind to the said crime. He hatched plan and secured the

presence of accused Nos.2 and 3 facilitated them to

implement his plans. Therefore, merely accused No.2 was

released on bail is not a ground to grant bail to accused

No.1. The role played by accused No.1 is totally different. If

he is released on bail he may tamper prosecution witnesses

and evidence. Hence prayed to reject the same.

NC: 2024:KHC:44820

8. Perused the materials on record. Looking to the

allegations made against Accused No.1, as rightly submitted

by the learned High Court Government Pleader, the

petitioner is the master mind in the said crime. He observed

that deceased was wearing several gold ornaments and she

was senior citizen and living alone. He hatched a plan to

murder her and rob all her valuable articles and cash. Due

to his insistence and force, accused No.2 agreed to do the

acts, so that he can repay the loan to accused No.1.

accused No.2 took assistance of accused No.3. Both accused

Nos.2 and 3 materialised the plan of accused No.1. All these

materials are sufficient to prima-facie believe involvement of

the petitioner in the said crime, which is grave in nature.

9. The petitioner had moved application for bail

before the trial Court that was rejected. He moved bail

application before this Court in Crl.P.No.2474/2023 and it

was also dismissed. In the orders passed by the trial Court

dated 28.02.2024, on the bail application filed by accused

No.1/petitioner, it is mentioned that his application for bail

filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court was rejected. Both the

NC: 2024:KHC:44820

sides have not produced copy of the said orders and it is not

seriously disputed by the petitioner during the arguments.

There are no changed circumstances to re-consider the

orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.2474/2023 dated

31.08.2023. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merits.

10. Accused No.2 was granted bail is not a ground to

allow the bail application of the petitioner. The role of

accused No.2 was different from that of accused No.1, which

are narrated above. The other accused are instruments in

his hands to execute the said plan. Therefore, on the ground

of parity, he is not entitled for bail. The charge sheet

appears to be filed during the year 2023 and it was

registered as S.C.No.685/2023. It appears that charges are

not framed so far. As per submission of learned advocate for

petitioner, it appears an application was filed by accused for

discharge and that is also pending for disposal. The accused

were said to be in judicial custody for last two years. Hence,

the learned trial Judge is directed to expedite the trial

proceedings.

NC: 2024:KHC:44820

11. For the aforesaid discussions, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

by accused No.1 in S.C.No.685/2023 arising out

of Crime No.215/2022 of Vidyaranyapura Police

on the file of LXV Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is rejected.