IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5219/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. RAKESH S/O. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.42, ITTAGOLPURA KAKOLU ROAD, ARAKERE POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 013 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI. ANAND R.V., ADV.] AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAJANAKUNTE POLICE BANGALORE RURAL POLICE REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 01 … RESPONDENT [BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP] THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.PC, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR. NO.78/2019 OF RAJANUKUNTE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 323, 324, 392, 504 AND 506 R/W. SEC. 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard and perused the records.
2. The brief allegations made against the petitioner and others are that on 23.06.2019, they attacked the complainant by name Anirudh, snatched ATM card from him and also forced him to request one of his friends to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the account of the complainant and thereafter it appears Rs.20,000/- amount has been withdrawn and also another Rs.15,000/- was also got transferred to that account and the same has been withdrawn. All the accused persons thereafter ran away from the spot. The complainant has stated that he came to know about the names of the accused persons due to the conversation that took place between the accused at that point of time and he would identify them when he comes across them again. On the basis of such complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.78/2019.
3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner contended that other accused Nos. 1 and 2 have already been released by the trial court under section 437 of Cr.PC, but the petitioner has approached this Court under section 438 of Cr. PC. The Police have stated in the remand application that there is recovery still pending and identification of the accused has to be done by the complainant during the course of investigation.
4. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that when investigation is not yet completed and presence of the accused is necessary either for investigation or interrogation and recovery, therefore, petition under section 438 of Cr.PC is not feasible to be granted at this stage. Hence, petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
5. Petitioner is at liberty to make application for grant of regular bail if he is arrested or if he voluntarily surrenders before the Court. In that eventuality, bail petition has to be disposed of by the concerned Court expeditiously.
Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-