R. SHIVARAJU Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these two petitions are in respect of same crime number, they have been taken up together to avoid repetition of discussion and to dispose of them with a common order.

(2.) CRL .P. No. 5676/2014 is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 2 and Crl.P. No. 5423/2014 is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 3, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 419, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent -police station Crime No. 132/2014.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner/accused No. 3 during the course of his arguments submitted that as there are changed circumstances in the case, petitioner/accused No. 3 has filed the petition. Learned counsel has submitted that even on earlier occasion also the petitioner approached this Court seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences and this Court by its order dated 23.06.2014 passed in Crl.P. 3136/2014 a/w Crl.P. 3137/2014 rejected the petition in respect of petitioners herein. Learned counsel has submitted that the respondent police sought custody of the petitioners by filing an application before the JMFC Court, which came to be rejected, thereafter, they approached the Sessions Court and learned Sessions Judge has also rejected the request for police custody of the petitioners and ultimately, the respondent -police approached this Court by filing the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. requesting to quash the orders passed by the JMFC Court and Sessions Court and for police custody of petitioners. Learned counsel has submitted that now the said petition is disposed of and same has been dismissed by this court. He has also submitted that as per the complaint averments and nature of the allegations, it show that the transaction is of the year 2006 and it is civil in nature. Hence, he submitted that even according to the prosecution case, the complainant has already filed the civil suit, which is pending before the City Civil Court at Bangalore. Learned counsel further submitted that looking to the said suit it is only against accused No. 1 and one K.G. Krishna, who is said to be the agent of the complainant. Hence, he submitted that so far as the petitioner/accused No. 3 is concerned absolutely there is no material on record about his involvement in committing the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No. 3 has further submitted that even according to the prosecution, investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The alleged offences are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He has also submitted that since from the date of arrest petitioner/accused No. 3 is in custody, his continuation in custody is not at all required as the investigation is already completed. Hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner/accused No. 3 may be enlarged on bail.