IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4278/2017 BETWEEN:
CHATAK BAHADOOR DHWALA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O GULAB DHWALA, R/AT MELKETHGRAMA, GHABISMASTH SHETHIANCHAL, CHURILA, CHENPUR, WARD NO.2, BAJANG DISTRICT NEPAL-113826 (BY SRI. CHANDRAHASA RAI B., ADV.) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, REPT BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 (BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.119/2015 (S.C.NO.1082/2015) OF MAHADEVAPURA P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302,307,397,506(B),411 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.119/2015. After completing investigation, Police have filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 397, 506B, 411 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments that wife of the deceased lodged the complaint, wherein she has stated that accused No.1 was working as a Security Guard, who stated on the night that his wife was having stomach pain and in that connection called to the mobile phone of the husband of the complainant stating that he needs help from them. Immediately, the husband of the complainant opened the door of the house, then four persons including accused No.1 barged inside the house. She was very much present behind her husband. Immediately, four persons attacked the complainant and her husband and punched on their face. Her husband was hit on his head, nose and face. Two of them pushed her down on the floor and her husband was severely assaulted and dragged him to the kitchen. His hands and legs were tied. Thereafter, they came to her and took her to the bedroom. They forced her to open the cub-boards and made to show the gold and money kept there by pointing a knife on her neck. She gave all the keys and then she was made to sit on the hall. They went all the rooms and ransacked the cub-boards. She went to the balcony of the hall and shouted for help. Then immediately, the Police came, they tried to caught hold the said persons, but they ran away. On the basis of the said complaint, firstly case came to be registered for the offence under Section 394 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, but subsequently, when charge sheet was filed, the other offences were also included in the charge sheet.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that accused No.4 against whom also similar set of allegations were made, was granted bail by the order of this Court. He has also submitted that on the voluntary statement made by accused No.2, the petitioner has been arrested on 03.03.2015. He has also submitted that there is no recovery effected from the possession of the petitioner. He has further submitted that even accused No.5 was also granted bail by the order of this Court. He has also submitted that as the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that, firstly looking to the statement of the victim girl, she identified the said persons, though she may not be knowing the names of those persons. It is also submitted that on the voluntary statement of the petitioner himself, the articles were recovered from the possession of accused No.5. Hence, looking to all these materials placed on record by the prosecution there is a prima-facie case made out as against the petitioner and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, and the charge sheet material, so also, the order dated 21.04.2017 passed by this Court in Crl.P.2706/2017 in respect of accused No.4.
7. Looking to the materials placed on record, the complaint averments show that along with accused No.1-Arun, three other persons accompanied him, and barged into the house of the complainant and they tried to assault both the husband of the complainant as well as the complainant. The complaint averments also show that said persons ransacked the house and they have taken the gold and silver articles kept in the cub- boards of the said house. The other allegations made in the complaint shows that the complainant made an attempt by shouting to get the neighbours, but even then, those persons, after committing the robbery in the said house, ran away before the arrival of the Police. But the materials show that after the arrest of the petitioner and as per his voluntary statement, the articles, which were kept with accused No.5, have been recovered by the Police from the possession of accused No.5. It is no doubt true, accused No.5 has been granted bail, but sofar as the case as against accused No.5 is concerned, it was prima-facie under Section 411 i.e., for receiving the stolen articles and there was no allegation as against accused No.5 that he was also a party in committing the robbery in the house of the complainant. When it is the prosecution case that the petitioner gave the voluntary statement regarding the articles, which are said to have been robbed from the house of the complainant and kept with accused No.5, and prima-facie there is a material to show that in the presence of panch witness the Police have seized the said articles from the possession of accused No.5, considering all these materials placed on record and also the materials collected during investigation by the Police, I am of the opinion that the involvement of the petitioner is prima-facie established by the prosecution. I have also gone through the order passed by this Court in respect of accused No.4, but perusing the said order, the allegations and the factual aspects in the case are not exactly one and the same. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and to release him on bail. Hence, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR