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.6697/2017 BETWEEN:
Sri G. Narayanappa S/o Govindappa Aged about 35 years R/at Veerapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. Pin Code: 561 203.
Also at No.143/4, Kenchenahalli, Nagenahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk Bengaluru-560 064.
(By Sri V. Vijayashekara Gowda, Advocate) AND:
... Petitioner State by Doddaballapura Rural Police Station, Doddaballapura Town, Bengaluru Rural District, Pin Code: 561 203 Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-01.
... Respondent (By Sri K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.15/2017 of Doddaballapura Rural Police Station, Bangalore District, and C.C.No.974/2017 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 120(B) of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.15/2017.
2. At the first instance FIR came to be registered against unknown persons and during the course of the trial other accused persons said to have given the statement before the Investigating Officer stating that out of the robbed amount they have given some portion of the amount to the present petitioner. Accordingly, the name of the present petitioner is also mentioned in the said case.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.5 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that the only basis in the prosecution to array the present petitioner as accused No.5 is the statement of accused Nos.1 to 4 that they have saved some portion of the amount with the present petitioner. He also made the submission that looking to the complaint averments and also the other prosecution materials there is no prima facie case as against the present petitioner. It is also his submission that accused Nos.1 to 4 have been already granted bail by the order of this Court as well as the order of the Sessions Court. He submitted that the father of the present petitioner is suffering from ailments, there is nobody to look after him. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that looking to the prosecution material there is a material to show the involvement of the present petitioner also in committing the alleged offence. Out of the robbed amount as stated by the other accused, some portion of the amount is given to the present petitioner also. During the course of investigation the present petitioner remained absconding, he is not available to the police. Even though investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, police were not able to trace him. Hence, he made the submission that in view of the conduct of the present petitioner he is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case.
7. It is no doubt true that the FIR came to be registered against six unknown persons, but subsequently the present petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.5. As submitted by the learned High Court Government pleader, entire period of investigation the petitioner remained absconding and police were not able to trace him. The offence alleged under Section 395 of IPC is a serious offence. It is the contention of the prosecution that he is to be interrogated and about the amount it is to be ascertained and if really the amount is saved with the present petitioner, same is to be recovered from his possession.
8. Considering these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is necessary in the case. It is not a fit case to exercise discretion for grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE AP/*