IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL BETWEEN:
Mr. Girish CRIMINAL PETITION No.5588/2018 S/o late Mani Aged about 28 years R/at 80 feet Road, Vegetable Shop, Mathikere, Yeshwanthpura Bengaluru-560 054.
(By Sri G.Desu Reddy, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka by Yeshwanthpura Police Station Bengaluru-560 054, Represented by State Public Prosecutor High court Buildings Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP) …Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.215/2018 of Yeshwanthpura Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 399 and 402 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 has been filed by petitioner/accused No.6 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.215/2018 of Yeshwanthapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 18.6.2018 at about 3.30 a.m. when the police were on patrolling duty, they found some persons moving around along with their motorbike and they have assembled at service road, near KVS bar and restaurant. Immediately, they went and saw that they were possessing deadly weapons and were attempting to rob the persons moving on road by putting on them red light. Immediately they apprehended accused Nos.1 to 5 and the remaining accused persons fled away from the spot. 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/accused is not involved in the alleged crime and he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the said case. He further submitted that no recovery has been made from the possession of the accused. Already charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner/accused is not required for the purpose of interrogation or investigation. He further submitted that the petitioner/accused is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused on anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner/accused is involved in a serious offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. She further submitted that the petitioner/accused is a habitual offender, he is involved in two more cases, one is under Sections 399, 402 and 120 of IPC. She further submitted that, the address produced by the accused in the petition is also not correct and he is not residing in the given address. She further submitted that the petitioner/accused is absconding and he is not available for the purpose of investigation or interrogation. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. The contents of the complaint reveals that when the police were on patrolling duty they noticed that the accused persons by holding deadly weapons have assembled in 80 feet road near KVS bar and restaurant and they are having intention to rob the general public.
That is the matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. It is the specific contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner/accused is a habitual offender, two more cases are pending as against him and one of the case is of similar nature and even the address furnished in the petition by the petitioner/accused is also not correct. Under the said facts and circumstances, I feel that it is not a fit case to exercise the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release the petitioner/accused on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
After the petitioner/accused surrendered before the Court below and moves the bail application, then the above observation will not come in the way of disposing the case on merits.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-