~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 1 respectively in Crime No.1069/2014 of the Hosdurg Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 365 and 394 read with Section 34 IPC.
3. On 07.10.2014 at 7 a.m., the de facto complainant, who is conducting a catering service, received a missed call to his mobile phone. When he called back, the phone was attended by a lady, who represented herself as Naseema. She wanted to meet him for discussing business matters. When again contacted, the de facto complainant told her that he would meet her after his works. By about 10.30 p.m. , he went over the place by his Alto car. As and when he got down from the car, 4 young men surrounded him, caught hold of him, and stopped him. They thrust cloth forcibly into his mouth and he was made to sit in the rear seat of the car. He was taken to the side of a paddy field. He was severely beaten and an amount of ₹27,000/- and his Nokia mobile worth ₹6,000/- were snatched away from him. He was denuded and his photographs were taken by using mobile phones. An amount of ₹10 lakhs more was demanded. As he prayed for mercy, they dropped him at Pattanakkad junction at about 3 a.m., on his agreeing to pay an amount of ₹1,50,000/- more on the next day.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the CD.
5. The contents of the CD, prima facie, reveal the complicity of the petitioners. It has been reported that the 2nd petitioner is involved in Crime No.1469/2014 of the Hosdurg Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 IPC and Crime No.31/2012 of the said Police Station for the offence under Section 365 read with Section 34 IPC. The investigation of this case is not over. Considering the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioners, the present stage of investigation, and the serious criminal antecedents of similar nature on the part of the 2nd petitioner, I am of the view that this is not a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners.
In the result, this bail application is dismissed.
Sd/-
(B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) aks/05/11 // True Copy // PA to Judge