IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6657 OF 2017 Between:
1. Sri.Besthakeshava S/o Chennarayadu, Aged about 32 years, R/o Gandhinagar, Kothacheruvu Mandalam, Sathya Sai Village Taluk, Ananthapura District, Andhra Pradesh – 08555 2. Sri.Subhan @ Shek Subhan, S/o Shek Madarsab, Aged about 42 years, R/a No.1-47, 1-E, Vijayanagar Colony, Kothacheruvu, Hindupura Taluk, Ananthapura District, Andhra Pradesh – 08555.
... Petitioners (By Sri.Murali.N, Advocate) And State by Chikkaballapura City Police, Chikkaballapur – 562 101.
... Respondent (By Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP.) This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.p.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Cr.No.25/2017 of Chickballapura Town Police Station, Chickballapura District for the offences punishable under Section 395 read with Section 34 of IPC and etc.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:
ORDER This is a petition filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 6 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking their release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 392 read with Section 34 of IPC registered by the respondent police in Crime No.25/2017. After investigation, chargesheet came to be filed for the offences under Section 395 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that some criminal persons trespassed into the house of the complainant and they robbed articles including cash. It is also the case of prosecution that they entered into the kitchen and broke open the iron safe and took away the jewels and others articles from the said house. Subsequently, the articles are said to have been recovered by the Investigation Officer at the instance of the petitioners and other accused persons which were identified by the complainant and other family members.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 6 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submission that there is no identity established looking to the prosecution material and that there is no prima facie case as against the petitioners about their involvement in committing the alleged offence. It is also his submission that accused No.5 has been already admitted to regular bail by the order of this Court dated 13.09.2017 in Crl.P.No.5464/2017.
Learned counsel produced a copy of the said order. Hence, he submits that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that the prosecution material goes to show that the family members were knowing the identity of persons who entered into the house. It is also his submission that even in the police station also the witnesses have identified the present petitioners that they are the persons who entered into the house along with other accused persons. It is also his submission that total 49 items were recovered at the instance of petitioners as well as other accused persons.
5. Learned HCGP made submission that petitioners are also involved in other criminal cases under Section 399 and 402 of IPC. They are the residents of Andhra Pradesh State. Hence, if released on bail, they may not be available for the progress in the case and even they may involve in committing similar offences. Hence, he prays for rejecting the bail petition.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced along with petition so also the order of the Sessions Court rejecting the bail application of the present petitioners.
7. The prosecution material collected during investigation prima-facie go to show that there is recovery of items which are forty nine in number at the instance of the petitioners and other accused persons and the articles are identified by the members of the said house. I have also perused the order passed by this Court in respect of accused No.5 wherein it is observed that there are no criminal antecedents as against accused No.5. But looking to the case on hand as it is submitted by the learned HCGP, that petitioners were secured under body warrant as they were involved in another case punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. Therefore, looking to these materials in the case, if they are released on bail there is every possibility that they may involve in committing such serious offences. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of these petitioners.
Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- Judge dn/-