Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 883 (KAR)

Hulgevaa v. State of Karnataka

2012-10-09

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

body2012
ORDER K.N. Keshavanarayana , J.—In this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners, who have been arraigned as accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No. 121/2012 of Badami Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 395 of I.P.C., have sought for an order to enlarge them on bail, inter alia contending that they are innocent persons and have not committed the offences alleged and that they have been falsely implicated in the case and all of them are women and being permanent residents of Solapur in Maharashtra State, have deep-rooted in the society. It is also their contention that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed act of dacoity and ever, the allegation in the complaint does not attract the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C. The petition is opposed by the respondent/State. 2. I have heard both sides. 3. According to the case of the prosecution, on 13.08.2012, the complainant-Madhumalati, wife of Basanagoudar Chenagoudar resident of B.N. Jalihal, Badami, had been to Basaveshwara Temple in Pattadakal and since there was heavy rush to go to sanctum sanctorum of the temple, she was standing in the midst of a group of people and there were ladies both ahead and behind her and at that time, the ladies behind her tried to push her and one of them snatched her gold Mangalya chain and on seeing this, she shouted, however, those ladies left the place immediately and about an hour later, she was informed that the five ladies, namely the petitioners herein, have been brought to Panchayath office while they were proceeding in an auto rickshaw. Immediately, she went there and identified them and out of them, the 1st petitioner produced the gold chain stolen from the complainant. Immediately, the police were summoned and thereafter, all the petitioners along with stolen gold chain were taken to the police station, where the complainant lodged a, report, based on which case came to be registered for offence punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C. and the investigation was taken upto. 4. To constitute the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC, there must be 'robbery' as defined under Section 390 of IPC and such robbery should be committed or attempted to commit such robbery by five or more persons conjointly. 4. To constitute the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC, there must be 'robbery' as defined under Section 390 of IPC and such robbery should be committed or attempted to commit such robbery by five or more persons conjointly. Theft would be a robbery if in order to commit theft or while committing the theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft, the offender, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. 5. A reading of the allegations made in the complaint, in my opinion, prima facie does not attract any of the ingredients of Section 390 of I.P.C. Therefore, at this stage, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioners are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. 6. Nevertheless, from the materials on record, prima facie, it, is clear that there was an act of theft of gold Mangalya chain belonging to the complainant and within about an hour thereafter, these petitioners were brought to Panchayath office and there, the complainant has identified these petitioners. However, even according to the complainant's allegations, the gold chain was in the possession of accused No. 1/i.e., petitioner No. 1 and she produced the same. Thus, no recovery has been effected from the possession of accused Nos. 2 to 5. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that these petitioners are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC and they are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 8. However, having regard to the fact that the 1st petitioner was found in possession of the stolen gold Mangalya chain and since she has been identified by the complainant, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the 1st petitioner is guilty of offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. 9. 8. However, having regard to the fact that the 1st petitioner was found in possession of the stolen gold Mangalya chain and since she has been identified by the complainant, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the 1st petitioner is guilty of offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. 9. Having regard to the fact that the offence has been committed in a temple by making use of the crowd there and since the 1st petitioner is a resident of Solapur in Maharashtra State, I am of the considered opinion, she is not entitled for the relief of bail and petitioners 2 to 5 against whom no prima facie case is made out are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 9-A. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The petitioners 2 to 5 (accused Nos. 2 to 5) are hereby ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 121/2012 of Badami Police Station subject to each of them executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- [Rupees fifty thousand only] with one local surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate and subject to further conditions that, (i) Petitioners 2 to 5 shall not tamper or terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner; (ii) They shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all hearing dates without fail; (iii) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without express permission; (iv) They shall not indulge in any acts similar to one alleged; and (v) They shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer on 10th and 25th of each calendar month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the disposal of the case. The petition in so far as it relates to the 1st petitioner is concerned is dismissed.