IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1449/2019 Between:
1. Prashanth @ Dasa @ Market S/o. Munikrishna @ Rajanna, Aged about 21 years, Behind Masjid, Gollahalli, Anjanapura Post, Bengaluru 560 062.
2. Shoyab Aktar @ Shoyab S/o. Asgar Pasha Aged about 20 years, R/at Gollahalli Village, Anjanapura Post, Bengaluru District 560 062.
3. Manoj Kumar @ Manu @ Manoj @ Jaggu S/o. Narasimhamurthy Aged about 22 years, R/at Gollahalli Village, Anjanapura Post, Bengaluru District 560 062.
… Petitioners (By Sri. M. V. Rajanna, Advocate) And:
State of Karnataka By Kaggalipura Police Rep. by its Government Pleader High Court Building, Bangalore 560 001.
(By Sri. K. P. Yoganna, HCGP) …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners/accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on bail in Cr.No.4/2019 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 394 of IPC, pending before the 2nd ACJM Judge at Bangalore.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Petitioners are seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with their detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.4/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was filed on 09.01.2019 stating that when the complainant along with his friends i.e., C.Ws. 1 to 5 and were returning from Mysore, near K. Gollahalli village, vehicle of the complainant was waylaid and it is stated that by threatening C.Ws. 1 to 5 with knife, cash of Rs.39,500/- and Samsung Mobile handset was snatched. Complaint was filed. Investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. It is stated that the respondent - Police have arrested the accused on 18.01.2019 and they are in custody since then.
3. It is noticed that the Sessions Judge has rejected the application of the petitioners observing that investigation was still pending.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per the case made out by the persecution, incident is alleged to have occurred at about 10.15 p.m. on 09.01.2019. It is stated that admittedly the accused are strangers and if that were to be so, identity of the accused ought to have been made with reference to the test identification parade which has not been carried out though investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. It is further contended that there are no criminal antecedents and the question of commission of offence is a matter to be proved during trial.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader, however, opposes grant of bail and contends that there has been recovery of cash as well as seizure of the auto rickshaw said to have been used by the accused in commission of offence. It is further stated that there are voluntary statements of accused Nos. 1 to 3.
6. However, the question of identity of the accused taking note of the time of the incident is a matter to be proved during trial.
7. There is some force in the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the accused are strangers, test identification parade may be required. However, the question as to whether there were other materials available to enable C.Ws. 1 to 5 to identify the accused is a matter to be left for trial.
Further, the question of proof of the voluntary statements is also a matter to be proved in trial. There are no criminal antecedents as asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioners which remains uncontroverted. Present proceedings cannot be considered to be proceedings for punishment. It is noted that the petitioners are in custody since 18.01.2019. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
8. In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioners under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioners are enlarged on bail in Crime No.4/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioners shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the petitioners to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(v) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioners, 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.
Sd/- JUDGE VP