High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 01 KAR CK 0073

A.M.Dinesh vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 2 January 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Budihal.R.B
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
8933 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

25 paragraphs · 472 words
1.

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the alleged offence punishable

under Sections 13(1) and 13(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 424 of IPC and Section 42 of Prisons Act, 1894, registered

in respondent-police station Crime No.474/2017.

2.

Case of the prosecution as per complaint averments are, the complaint lodged by one Mr.M.Somashekar stating that on 11.10.2017 at about

9.30 am, the petitioner entered the Central Prison after depositing his mobile phone at the main entrance when he came to return the warrant sent

to the Sessions Court on 10.10.2017 and he was subjected to check at A-2 gate of the prison and the warder on duty, namely Mr.Basavaraja

Mattur, who was engaged in the search found the cover containing the warrants with two Samsung J2 mobile phones without sim cards inserted

into them, wrapped between the warrants and upon seizing the said mobile phones in the presence of Jailor on duty namely, Ms.Hemavathi and

submitted a report. On the basis of the same, case came to be registered for the alleged offence.

3.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent- State.

4.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR complaint and also other materials produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5.

In the petition it is contended by the petitioner that he is innocent and not involved in committing the said offence.

6.

Learned HCGP for the respondent-State contended that in between the warrants of the Court there were two mobile phones which were seized

from the possession of the petitioner and the matter is still under investigation. As contended by the prosecution that two mobile phones have

already been seized and alleged to be from the possession of the petitioner herein which is seriously challenged by the petitioner and the alleged

offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Petitioner is in custody since from the date of arrest till now. He is ready

to abide by any reasonable conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

7.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1) and

13(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 424 of IPC and Section 42 of Prisons Act, 1894, registered in respondent-police station

Crime No.474/2017, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned

Court.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.