ORDER : S.N. Satyanarayana, J. 1. The affidavit filed by the complainant is taken on record. Appropriate orders will be passed thereon. 2. Now coming to the criminal petition on hand, the 1st and 2nd accused in Crime No. 221/2016, registered with Hangal Police for the offence punishable under Section 307, 333, 353, 392, 392, 397 read with Section 34 of IPC, have come up in this petition seeking their enlargement on bail. 3. Admittedly the complaint in Crime No. 221/2016 is filed by one Rajashekharayya B.C., Inspector of Police, presently attached to Basavanagudi P.S. The complaint which is filed by him would indicate that the petitioners herein are accused of involved in lifting the vehicles which they had made as their profession. On credible information, it is stated that a search party including the complainant went to the spot and when there was an attempt to apprehend the accused, it is stated that they assaulted the complainant with sharp edged weapons like dagger and other weapons with an attempt to commit homicidal death of the said person. Hence the aforesaid complaint was filed. 4. It is seen that based on the complaint, investigation is conducted and charge sheet is also filed against the petitioners herein for the very same offence and the said complaint is registered as criminal case and pending for committing to the Sessions Court. When the matter stood thus, the petitioners herein have approached the Court of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, by filing a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., which is in Crl. Misc. No. 663/2016, which came to be dismissed by order dated 28.9.2016. Thereafter the present petition is filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the learned HCGP. Perused the grounds urged in support of relief and also the order passed by the Court of Sessions in Crl. Misc. No. 663/2016 and further noticed the contents of letter dated 3.1.2017 sent to the SPP of this Court by the police of Byadagi Circle, which clearly indicates that the petitioners herein are involved in other criminal activities where the complaints are registered against them in Crime Nos. 40/2009, 3/2010, 169/2014 and 175/2014 with Hangal Police and another in Crime No. 21/2010 with Shiggaon Police for various offences. 6. 40/2009, 3/2010, 169/2014 and 175/2014 with Hangal Police and another in Crime No. 21/2010 with Shiggaon Police for various offences. 6. Surprisingly the Inspector of Police has not furnished the outcome of these complaints whether they are subsequently charge sheeted or B report is filed in those matters and reason for withholding that is also not forthcoming by the learned HCGP. However he would state that out of the aforesaid five criminal complaints registered, one has resulted in conviction and others are at different stages. 7. Be that as it may, with this what is seen is that the petitioners herein are not innocent as they have stated in this petition and that there are several accusations against them with reference to similar offences right from the year 2009 to the year 2016 when Crime No. 221/2016 is registered. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court feel, taking lenient view on them and allowing them to roam freely among the general public is detrimental to the interest of the society. More particularly when it is stated that lifting of vehicles and other criminal activities being their regular source of livelihood and practice. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court feel the question of considering the application for their enlargement on bail does not arise and that they shall continue to be in custody till such time the prosecution launched against them and charge sheet filed in Crime No. 221/2016 reaches its logical end. With such observation, the present petition is dismissed. 10. In this proceedings while considering the petition filed by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 221/2016, this Court went through the contents of the complaint filed by Sri Rajashekharayya B.C., Inspector of Police, wherein he has made several accusation like when he went to apprehend the accused, they tried to assault him and take away a gold chain weighing 40 grams, gold ring weighing 10 grams, Rs. 60,000/- cash, 5S I-phone and a wrist watch from him. This Court could not believe the said allegation prima facie, as it appeared to be the accusation in counter blast to the assault made on him. 60,000/- cash, 5S I-phone and a wrist watch from him. This Court could not believe the said allegation prima facie, as it appeared to be the accusation in counter blast to the assault made on him. Hence he was summoned to this Court on 16.12.2016, on which day he was directed to file an affidavit whether he has declared these assets in the annual assets and liabilities statement and as to the date of purchase of the same and receipt for purchase of phone, gold chain, gold ring and also source of the cash. 11. For that an attempt is made by him by filing an affidavit to explain as if the contents of his complaint is true. To gain sympathy of the Court he has also produced photographs showing injuries suffered to his head, which appears to be fatal in nature. This Court has all the sympathies for Mr. Rajasjekharayya B.C., who has suffered injuries while discharging his duties. But at the same time the same cannot be converted to accept all the allegations and accusation made by him which prima facie appears to be false. To substantiate the falsehood which he has commenced in the form of complaint, he has relied upon several documents to show as if he has purchased the phone on 29.5.2016 in his name by relying upon the invoice of even date bearing No. SI/1508 issued by New Mass The Gadget Guru having its shop at 81/2, Srinidhi, Gandhi Bazaar Main Road, (Opp. Athithya Hotel), Basvanagudi, Bangalore, and he has also made an attempt to produce the statement of State Bank of India of Jayanagar II Block, Bangalore and other documents. 12. Prima facie none of those documents support his accusation that he had aforesaid articles with him and the same is lost and he has not even said whether it was recovered or not. If he has really purchased the phone, then he being a Police Officer would have traced the whereabouts of the phone by using the ID number, if it is stolen, since it is a smart phone. He has not stated in his affidavit whether he could track that instrument, or if not, why, is not explained and with reference to cash, there is an evasive attempt to explain the same as if it is withdrawn. He has not stated in his affidavit whether he could track that instrument, or if not, why, is not explained and with reference to cash, there is an evasive attempt to explain the same as if it is withdrawn. But there is no entry in the bank statement to demonstrate that he had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 60,000/- to be carried with him at the relevant point of time and he also does not say why it was carried with him. 13. Though there was a direction issued to state as to whether he has declared the assets in the annual assets and liabilities statement, deliberately the same was not furnished to the Court thereby clearly indicating that his superiors are also supporting him hand in glow. 14. Therefore in the present set of circumstances the learned Sessions Judge who would conduct the case should also enquire into this aspect regarding the theft of mobile phone, gold ring and gold chain from him and also cash of Rs. 60,000/- of the complainant by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge further should conduct an enquiry into the same as to why he carried Rs. 60,000/- with him from Bengaluru to that place and why the same was not disclosed to his superiors should be elicited from him in the enquiry to be conducted and appropriate report should be submitted by the learned Sessions Judge to this very Bench. It is needless to say that the Sessions Case and as well as this enquiry both should be concluded within 12 months from today.