IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5652/2017 BETWEEN:
Syed Parveez @ Parveez, S/o Syed Yusuf, Aged about 24 years, R/at No.00, 7th main, 7th Cross, Gurappana Palya, 2nd Cross, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru – 560 076. ... Petitioner (By Sri Sheshadri G.R., Advocate) AND State of Karnataka by Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City – 560 076. ...Respondent (By Sri.Chethan Desai, HCGP) This criminal petition is filed under section 439 Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.657/2016 of Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence P/U/S 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 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking his release on bail of the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.657/2016.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief as per the complaint averments that on 07.08.2016 between 11.15 am., to 11.25 am., the complainant was proceeding on 6th main road, BTM layout. CW1 was going behind CW10, at that time accused came by Honda Activa motor cycle and pushed the complainant forcibly with an intention to snatch gold chain from her neck. As a result she fell down, the accused showed knife and gave life threat and ran away with gold chain. On 27.12.2016 the accused was traced out by CW11 to CW13. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered against the accused for the alleged offence.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that looking to the prosecution materials, the FIR came to be registered against two unknown persons. Learned counsel also made submission that even looking into the prosecution materials, there is no prima-facie case as against the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that this petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case. The investigation is completed, chargesheet is filed. Hence, imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner – accused may be enlarged on bail. Hence, prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned Government High Court Pleader made submission that, as on today there are 25 criminal cases are pending against the present petitioner. If the petitioner/accused released on bail, there is every possibility in involving the same offence and even, he may abscond also. Hence, he prays to reject the petition.
6. By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not 25 cases, it is 16 cases registered against the petitioner and out of them, 5 cases are punishable under Section 379 IPC. Again, he made a submission that whatsoever the claim made was oversight, but not correct.
7. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, and the other materials placed on record.
8. The learned Government High Court Pleader made submission that as on today totally there are 25 criminal cases are pending against the present petitioner. But, as per the counsel for the petitioner, there are only 16 cases registered against the petitioner. This itself clearly goes to show that the present petitioner is habitual offender, having criminal antecedents. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant bail. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE MR