IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019, BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3131 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Imdadulla @ Imdad S/o. Amjadulla, Aged about 26 years.
2. Mujahidulla S/o. Amjadulla, Aged about 24 years.
Residing at Buden Sab Palya, Bagalur, Jala Hobli, Bangalore-63.
And also at Tippunagar Main Road, Kogily Layout, Bangalore City – 560 064.
(By Sri. Lakshmikanth K., Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Rep. by MICO Layout Police Station, By its State Public Prosecutor, …Petitioners High Court Building, Bangalore-01.
(By Sri. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) **** …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.27/2018 of MICO Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petitioners have sought their enlargement on bail in Crime No.27/2018 of Respondent – Police for the offences punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The allegation made by the complainant in his complaint is that, on 02-02-2018 at about 4:15 a.m., there was theft of sandalwood tree from his house premises.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the materials placed before the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent - Police only for statistical purposes have falsely implicated the present petitioners in a false case.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners are habitual offenders and are involved in five similar cases of theft of sandalwood.
6. Admittedly, the complainant does not name any of the present petitioners as accused in the commission of the alleged crime. Even according to the complainant, the alleged theft of sandalwood from his house premises had taken place on 02-02-2018. However according to the prosecution, the alleged apprehension of the accused was in December 2018, i.e. after more than ten months from the date of the alleged commission of the crime.
7. Even according to the prosecution, the alleged apprehension of the petitioners is subsequent to their arrest in some other case where they are said to have confessed about the commission of the aforesaid crime. When that being the case, the reliance by the police to apprehend the accused is on the alleged statement shown to have been made by the present petitioners, the truthfulness in it and reliability requires a detailed trial.
Therefore, for the time being, suffice it to say that in the absence of any apprehension of the prosecution of the accused being absconding from the clutches of justice and not whispering anything about the trial being vitiated by their enlargement, I am of the view, that, imposing reasonable restrictions, petitioners/accused be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R The petition is allowed. The petitioners be enlarged on bail in Crime No.27 of 2018 of Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City, subject to the following conditions:
(i) That the petitioners shall execute a personal bond of `40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) each with two sureties, with proof of their address and to the satisfaction of the enlarging Court.
(ii) The petitioners to give in writing about the change in their address, if any, to the Investigating Officer as and when such change occurs and obtain acknowledgement in that regard.
(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing.
(iv) They shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses and documents.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*