IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.5117/2018 BETWEEN:
Sri J.R. Girish @ Girish Reddy S/o Rajareddy Aged about 23 years R/at Chilakalapalli Village Bagepalli Taluk Chikkabalapur District-561 207.
… Petitioner (By Sri Nagesh C., & Sri S. Ravindra, Advocates) AND:
State of Karnataka by Mahadevapura Police, Bangalore. Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court, 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 petitioner on bail in Crime No.101/2017 (S.C.No.83/2018) of Mahadevapura Police Station, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 120B, 397 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/ accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Crime No.101/2017 (S.C.No.83/2018) of Mahadevapura Police Station, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 120B, 397 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 3.3.2017 at about 1.30 a.m. the complainant after finishing his shift was waiting for the vehicle opposite to his Company. At that time a white car stopped and asked him the address to Sarjapura and at that time he has gone near the car and during the said period four unknown persons abducted the complainant and went towards Marathahalli and they snatched a sum of Rs.500/-, ATM Card and after taking his Pin number, by showing a knife he caused injury and thereafter withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not participated in the alleged incident and already the charge sheet has been filed. Petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation and interrogation. He further submitted that, if really he had withdrawn the amount, he will be having withdrawal slip or the statement of the bank for having withdrawn the amount of Rs.10,000/-. The said documents have not been produced along with the charge sheet. That itself clearly goes to show that no such alleged incident has taken place. He further submitted that he is innocent and he is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner/accused including other accused persons has committed the alleged offence by abducting the complainant and he has been involved in three cases and in some of the cases though the Court has granted bail, he has not furnished the sureties and hence he has not been released on bail. He further submitted that accused No.2 is having the criminal antecedents and if he is enlarged on bail he may again indulged in similar type of criminal activities and he may abscond and he may not be available for the trial. It is further submitted that Test Identification Parade has also been held and in the Test Identification Parade the complainant has identified the accused. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. On going through the records it indicates that the petitioner/accused has involved in many more criminal cases and he has not furnished the surety as ordered by the Court and even the records also indicate that in the Test Identification Parade the complainant has identified the accused. If he is enlarged on bail he may indulged in similar type of criminal activities and he may abscond and he may not be available for the trial.
8. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I feel that, it is not a fit case to release the petitioner/accused on bail. Hence, the petition is stands dismissed.
However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of Certified Copy of this Court.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-