IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6932 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
MUJAMIL AHMED @ MUJJU S/O WAJIR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 7TH CROSS, VINOBNAGAR, VENKATESHAPURA, K.G.HALLI, BANGALORE-15.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI SREENIVASA KUMAR D.G., ADV.,) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY COTTONPET POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REP BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-01.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) * * * THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN CR.NO.83/2017 OF COTTON PET P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 397 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.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 381 of IPC, registered in respondent–Police Station Crime No.83/2017, later on, offence under Section 397 of IPC has been inserted.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that there is no prima facie material as against the present petitioner about his involvement in committing the alleged offence. There is no alleged recovery from the petitioner herein. The prosecution materials goes to show that the alleged recovery of the material and the vehicle is at the instance of accused No.1. He also made the submission that accused No.1 has already been granted bail by the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable condition, the petitioner may be enlarged bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State made the submission that looking to the prosecution material there is allegation as against the present petitioner about his involvement in committing the alleged offence. The alleged offence is serious in nature. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioner herein and also other materials placed on record.
6. On perusal of the materials, it goes to show that originally the FIR came to be registered for the alleged offence under Sections 379 and 381 of IPC against one Devaraju who is accused No.1. Therefore, either in the complaint or in the FIR, the name of the present petitioner is not figured. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, the present petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.2. Admittedly, even according to the prosecution, there is no recovery at the instance of present petitioner, but the alleged recovery is at the instance of accused No.1 only. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/ accused No.2 is an innocent person and he has not committed the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case.
7. I have also perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in respect of accused No.3, who has been enlarged on bail by order dated 25.4.2017. Now, the investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet has also been filed. The alleged offence under Section 397 of IPC is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to be enlarged on bail for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC registered in Crime No.83/2017, subject to following conditions:
i. Petitioner to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly; and iii. Petitioner to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE PB