IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.5495/2019 Between:
Ayub Khan, S/o Altaf Khan, Aged about 35 years, Residing at No.244, Thimmaiah Road, Mecca Masjid, Nehrupuram, Bengaluru – 560 051.
Also R/at No.242, 3rd Cross, Birasath Street, Nehrupuram, Bengaluru – 31. … Petitioner (By Sri Rajendra Desai, Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka By Konanakunte Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. … Respondent (By Sri K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.15/2019 of Marathahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences p/u/s 406, 420, 482, 486, 488, 489 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER The petitioner, who is accused No.2 in the charge sheet filed pursuant to the investigation in Crime No.15/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 482, 486, 488 and 489 of IPC has sought to be released on bail as he had been detained pursuant to the said proceedings referred to above.
2. The case that is made out by the complainant is that the Police Authorities have registered Crime No.15/2019 against Tanveer Ahmed (accused No.1) and it is stated that the complainant had leased the car to accused No.1 and accused No.1 in turn had leased it to accused No.2 which subsequently has been leased to accused No.3.
3. It is submitted that accused No.1 without taking permission of the complainant has cheated the complainant by sub-leasing the vehicle to accused No.2. The case that is made out in the charge sheet is that all the accused together had conspired to commit the alleged offences and have resorted to tamper engine and chassis number.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not aware that the vehicles belonged to the complainant and the same was leased out to accused No.1 and accused No.1 was not the owner. It is further submitted that there are no criminal antecedents and the case that is made out against the petitioner is a matter to be proved during trial. Investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. Noticing the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail subject to conditions.
5. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the petition filed while observing that the accused had criminal antecedents. However, as regards the present petitioner, there are no criminal antecedents unlike the other accused. Hence, the petitioner is to be treated differently.
6. The proof of offence is a matter for trial in the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No No.15/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 482, 486, 488 and 489 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(v) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities of like nature.
(vi) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
VGR Sd/- JUDGE