IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.656/2019 BETWEEN:
Ismail Pasha @ Baba S/o late Sameer Pasha Aged about 34 years R/at Door No.47, 7th Cross, B.K. Nagar, Near Masque Yeshvanthapura Bengaluru-560 022.
Presently at Door No.662, 8th Cross, Bandappa Road Ambedkar Nagar, Yeshvanthapura, Bengaluru-560 022.
(By Sri T.A. Basavaraju, Advocate) AND:
…Petitioner State of Karnataka by V.V. Puram Police Station Mysuru City-570 002.
Represented by learned State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001.
…Respondent (By Sri M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.86/2017 of V.V.Puram Police Station, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 342 and 481 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 the petitioner/ accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Crime No.86/2017 of V.V.Puram Police Station, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 342 and 481 of Indian Penal Code.
This case is taken out of turn on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the mother of the petitioner/accused has been admitted in the hospital and there is nobody to look after her.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. From the complaint it can be gathered that on 23.06.2017 at about 11.35 a.m., when the complainant was inside his office at Yadavagiri Industrial Area, Mysore, about 7 to 8 persons entered the office and they introduced themselves that they were CBI Officers and robbed an amount of Rs.29,66,840/- which was kept in a bag and while going, they destroyed the Hard Disk of the CCTV and they also snatched the mobile phone of the complainant and wrongly confined the complainant in a room.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that already accused Nos.1, 4, 5, 8 to 11 have been released on bail by this Court. On the ground of parity, the petitioner/accused is also entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that the petitioner/accused is a resident of Bengaluru and the test identification parade has been held and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submitted that the petitioner/accused is in no way concerned to the alleged crime. There is inordinate delay in conducting the test identification parade and even no explanation has been offered for the said delay. He further submitted that the evidence that was produced clearly goes to show that an amount of Rs.90,000/- was recovered along with mobile phone from accused No.1. There are no specific overt acts alleged against the petitioner/accused. He 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 on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner/accused was a member of the unlawful assembly and he has assisted the other petitioner/accused in the alleged crime. He further submitted that the mobile phone and cash of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.6,500/- has been recovered at the instance of the accused. He further submitted that the petitioner/accused is also the main accused who has actively participated in the alleged crime.
If he is released on bail he will abscond and may not be available for the 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 appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. The contents of the complaint indicates that the complaint does not specifically depict the specific overt act attributable to the petitioner/accused. Though there is allegation that the accused has entered into the factory premises, the only allegation which has been made as against the petitioner/accused is that he snatched the mobile phone and no other overt acts have been alleged. Already accused Nos.1, 4, 5, 8 to 11 have been released on bail. Under the similar facts and circumstances on the ground of parity the petitioner/accused is also entitled to be released on bail. The above said observation made only for the purpose of disposal of this bail petition, it is in no way going to affect the merits of the case at the time of trial.
8. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that if the petitioner/accused is ordered to be enlarged on bail by imposing some stringent conditions, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
9. In the light of the discussions held by me above, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.86/2017 of V.V.Puram Police Station, Mysuru for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 342, 481 of Indian Penal code, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
iii) He shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police once in 15 days between 10.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. till the trial is concluded.
iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
v) He shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities.
vi) He shall be regular in attending the trial.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-