IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1986 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI.K.R.RAGHU, S/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT KITTANA HALLI VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 562130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI N SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADANAYAKANAHALLY POLICE, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI I.S.PROMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C.PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.30/2019 REGISTERED BY MADANAYAKAHALLY POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 397 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail.
2. Petitioner is said to be an accused in Crime No.30/2019 registered for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC, later the charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC.
3. The allegation made in the complaint that on 30.12.2018 at about 9.00p.m., when the complainant and his four friends were proceeding on motorcycle near Jinnagaramma temple, the petitioner and other accused persons came from backside and stopped the vehicle and by throwing chilly powder on their eyes, they robbed cash, two gold rings, mobile phone, etc. and after assaulting them, the accused persons ran away. Subsequently, case has been registered on 21.01.2019 and later accused persons said to be arrested and remanded to judicial custody and on the voluntary statement of other accused, this petitioner is also implicated in the case. Thereafter, the petitioner has surrendered before Police on 15.02.2019, since then he is in custody.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. There is inordinate delay of 22 days in lodging the complaint. The name of the petitioner is not revealed in the FIR and there is no test identification parade conducted in the case. There is no recovery except some cash from this petitioner, there is no deadly weapon recovered from this accused. It is also contended that accused No.2 has already been granted bail by the Sessions Court. Hence, prays for allowing this petition.
5. Per contra, learned SPP-II objected the bail petition on the ground that it is a heinous offence, however, admitted that charge sheet is filed by the Police.
6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is a delay of 22 days in lodging the complaint and there is no wound certificate secured by the I.O. in order to show that the complainant sustained any injury. Initially, though the case is registered for the offence under Section 397 of IPC, but subsequently, Police filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. Except securing Rs.2,300/- from this petitioner, there is no deadly weapons recovered from the petitioner. The similar allegations are made against the other accused, who are already granted bail by the Sessions Court for default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is no more required for investigation. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for bail.
Accordingly, petition is allowed.
The petitioner-accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail, in Crime No.30/2019 of Madanayakanahally Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 395 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Petitioner-accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Committal Court;
(ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;
(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;
(iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the trial Court, and (v) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. once in fortnight for a period of six months or till commencement of trial, whichever is earlier.
BSR SD/-
JUDGE