Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 166 (KAR)

R. Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka

2013-02-12

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

body2013
Order: 1. In these three petitions filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioners arraigned as accused in Crime No.136/2012 of Halebeedu police station for the offences punishable under Section 397 IPC., have sought for an order to enlarge them on bail. Therefore, all the three petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, there was an incident of dacoity at about 10.30 pm., on 28.12.2012 near Hagare village on Belur-Hassan road when the complainant Srinidhi, resident of Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore alongwith his friends was proceeding from Belur towards Bangalore in his Car, five unknown persons who were proceeding in a car way laid them and robbed them of gold ornaments and mobile phones, cash etc., by threatening them with injury with the knife and also caused injury to one of them. In respect of this incident, Srinidhi lodged a report at about 5.30 am., on 29.10.2012 based on which, case came to be registered against five unknown persons. 3. According to the case of the prosecution, on 05.11.2012 accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on suspicion. During interrogation, they said to have confessed to the crime and also said to have disclosed the complicity of accused Nos.3 to 5 in the commission of the offence alleged. On the basis of such voluntary disclosure made by accused Nos.1 and 2, accused Nos.3 to 5 were arraigned as accused in the case and subsequently, they were also arrested. At the instance of the arrested accused persons, Investigating Officer said to have recovered gold bracelet, chain and also some mobile phones. Subsequently, the petitioners were subjected to judicial custody. Their application filed before the learned Sessions Judge for grant of bail 6 came to be rejected. Therefore, they are before this Court. 4. The petition is opposed by respondent-State. 5. I have heard both the sides and perused the records made available. 6. As noticed supra, on the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, case came to be registered against five unknown persons. Even according to the complainants, assailants were strangers and unknown to him and other inmates of the car. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested only on suspicion and the other accused persons were added in the case on the basis of voluntary statement said to have been made by accused Nos.1 and 2. Even according to the complainants, assailants were strangers and unknown to him and other inmates of the car. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested only on suspicion and the other accused persons were added in the case on the basis of voluntary statement said to have been made by accused Nos.1 and 2. According to the materials available on record, the arrested persons were identified by the complainant and other witnesses in the police station and no identification parade as required by law was conducted. Recovery of gold bracelet, chain and some mobile hand sets are said to have been made at the instance of these petitioners. The description of the mobile hand set said to have been recovered at the instance of these petitioners prima facie does not tally with the description made in the complaint. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record, at this stage, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the complicity of these petitioners in the commission of offence alleged. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 8. The apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioners may indulge in similar activity and flee away from justice could be allayed by imposing strict conditions. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for bail. 9. Hence, the petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.136/2012 of Halebeedu Police Station on each of them executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate. Out of two sureties one shall be local surety and subject to further conditions that, i) They shall not tamper or terrorise with the prosecution witnesses in any manner. ii) They shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case. iii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and cooperate in the investigation of the case. iv) They shall mark their attendance in the respondent -Police Station, on every 10th & 25th of each calendar month between 10:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m. till the disposal of the case. v) They shall not go out of the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without express permission thereof.