Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 302 (KAR)

Shivaraja alias Shivui v. State of Karnataka

2012-03-29

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

body2012
Judgment : 1. As these two petitions filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are arising out same Crime No.6 of 2012 of Siddapura Police Station, Bangalore City, they have been clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1652 of 2012 has been arrayed as accused 1 and the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.1310 of 2012 have been arrayed as accused 3 and 4 in Crime No.6 of 2012 of Siddapura Police Station, Bangalore City, registered for the offences punishable under Section 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. These petitioners along with other accused alleged to have made preparations for committing dacoity and robbery near Siddapura Kalyani, situated in 1st Block, Jayanagara, Bangalore. According to the case of the prosecution, at about 8 p.m. on 9-1-2012, the Police Inspector of Siddapura Police Station, Bangalore, received a credible information about five persons standing near Siddapura Kalyani in 1st Block, Jayanagara, along with an auto rickshaw and a motorcycle and are making preparations to commit robbery and dacoity. Immediately, the said Police Inspector secured the panchas, appraised them about the information received by him and thereafter, along with the Panchas and the staff came near the place, saw three persons sitting inside the auto rickshaw and two persons sitting on a motorcycle parked there. At that place, a Police personnel was sent near those persons to confirm the correctness of the information and after over hearing the discussions going on between them, the police personnel gave signal and immediately the riding party surrounded those persons sitting in the auto rickshaw and the motorcycle, caught hold of them and on interrogation, they disclosed their names and identity and however, one of them ran away from that place. Two clubs about three feet in length found behind the hind seat of the auto rickshaw as well as the motorcycle were seized and on the basis of the suo motu report, the Police Inspector registered the case. 4. It is the further case of the prosecution that at the instance of accused I, seven gold chains were recovered and at the instance of accused 2 to 4, nine gold chains were recovered. Since then the petitioners are in Judicial custody. The prayer for bail made by the petitioners before the learned Sessions Judge came to be rejected. 4. It is the further case of the prosecution that at the instance of accused I, seven gold chains were recovered and at the instance of accused 2 to 4, nine gold chains were recovered. Since then the petitioners are in Judicial custody. The prayer for bail made by the petitioners before the learned Sessions Judge came to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. The petition is opposed by the respondent-State. 6. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that similarly placed accused 2 has been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, on the principles of parity, these petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that even on the merits, the petitioners are entitled for bail, since there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of any offences. 9. As noticed supra, the petitioners along with other accused said to have been apprehended while they were preparing to commit robbery and dacoity. There was no accomplished act. Only two clubs said to have been kept behind the passenger seat of the auto rickshaw were seized. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offences alleged, I am of the considered opinion and since accused 2 who is similarly placed has already been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 11. Hence, the petition is allowed. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offences alleged, I am of the considered opinion and since accused 2 who is similarly placed has already been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 11. Hence, the petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in connection with the case in Crime No.6 of 2012, on their executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate and subject to further conditions that: (i) The petitioners shall not tamper or terrorise with the prosecution witnesses in any manner; (ii) The petitioners for the purpose of investigation shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon to do so and co-operative in the investigation of the case; (iii) The petitioners shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case; (iv) The petitioners shall appear on all hearing dates before the Court without fail; (v) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court concerned without express permission; (vi) The petitioners shall mark their attendance with the Investigating Officer on every 10th and 25th of each calendar month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till the disposal of the case.