IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.451/2019 BETWEEN :
Anooj S/o Abu Aged about 25 years R/o Kelul House, Chembakkachodu Koliyadi Marakkada, Nemmoni Grama Sulthan Batheri, Kerala-673 592.
(By Smt. Sahana M.S., Advocate for Sri S.Shankarappa, Advocate) AND :
State of Karnataka by Nanjanagudu Rural Police Station Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) … Petitioner … Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.362/2017 (S.C.No.255/2018) of Nanjanagudu Rural Police Station, Mysuru District, for the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition is filed by accused No.10 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in SC.No.255/2018 (Crime No.362/2017 of Nanjanagudu Rural Police Station) on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysore, for the offences punishable under Section 395 of IPC.
2. I have heard Ms.Sahana M.S., for Sri S.Shankarappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant in order to bring vegetables in RMC, Mysore, used to go to Mysore three days in a week. On 9.9.2017 at about 10.00 a.m., he went to Mysore along with driver Saleem in his tempo bearing Regn.No.KL12L1110 and after purchasing the vegetables when they reached near Nanjangud on a road, five unknown persons in a jeep by overtaking his vehicle, stopped in front of his vehicle and waylaid the tempo. All of them after getting down from the jeep came and made galata with the driver Saleem and showed him iron rod. All of them by holding iron rod and screw driver scolded the driver and came towards the complainant, opened the door and slapped him and snatched his bag containing Rs.3,00,000/- which was kept for the purpose of buying the vegetables. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he has not been involved in the alleged crime. Complaint does not disclose the name of the petitioner-accused No.10. Name of five persons have been stated in the complaint, but subsequently when the charge sheet has been filed 10 persons have been included. She further submitted that accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 have already been released on bail and on the ground of parity, the petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. She further submitted that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, she prayed to allow the petition and to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that petitioner-accused No.10 has threatened the complainant by showing the long and snatched Rs.3,00,000/- which was with the complainant. The petitioner along with other accused persons has been involved in a serious offence which is punishable with imprisonment for maximum period of ten years. He further submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, as he is from other State, he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other material on record, it would indicate that earlier complaint was registered against unknown persons and during the course of investigation, accused persons were apprehended. Already accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 have been released on bail. There is no specific overt act as against the petitioner-accused No.10, who also stands on the same footing. The only apprehension of the learned HCGP is that as the petitioner is from Kerala State, he may abscond and may not be available for trial. The said apprehension can be protected by imposing some stringent conditions.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petition is allowed. Accused No.10-petitioner herein is enlarged on bail in SC.No.255/2018 (Crime No.362/2017 of Nanjanagudu Rural Police Station) on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysore, for the offences punishable under Section 395 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-
i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two Lakhs only) with two local sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii) He shall be regular in attending the trial.
iii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
iv) He shall mark his attendance on 1st of every month in Nemmoni Gram Police Station where the petitioner resides and the jurisdictional police is directed to get the report about marking of the attendance by the petitioner.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-