ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused records and also the remand application filed by the Police. 2. It is the allegation that accused Nos.1 and 2 in connection with Crime No. 325/2016 by name Mohammad Ali and Zubair are the habitual offenders and they used to commit theft by wandering on the motorcycle and snatching the chains and gold articles from the persons who are the users of public roads, etc. In this background it is alleged that on 17.11.2016, accused Nos.1 and 2 have snatched a gold chain weighing 20 gms. from Smt. Vinoda wife of Shekhar of Veerabhadreshwar Nagar of Dharwad. On registering a case Police have investigated the matter and arrested accused Nos.1 and 2. In fact, accused Nos.1 and 2 in their voluntary statement have disclosed the fact that they have given the said chain to accused No.3 and in turn it is the allegation that the accused No.3 has given the said chain to the present petitioner accused No.4, who is a jeweller having a jewellery shop by name and style “Suvarna Jewellery” near K.C.C. Bank, Dharwad. With such information the Police had been to the shop of this petitioner and at the instance of accused No.3 they have recovered the said gold chain. The Police have also expressed in the remand application that the accused No.4 might have known that the said chain is a stolen property and inspite has purchased the same. Therefore, on the ground that he is the receiver of the stolen property, he was arrested on 23.11.2016 and since then he has been in judicial custody. 3. On perusal of the papers available on record even in the remand application there is no material collected by the Police at this stage to show that this particular petitioner is a habitual receiver of the stolen property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention, even earlier in the year 1993 similar allegations were made and ultimately this Court in Crl. R.P. No. 468 and 620/2001 acquitted the petitioner. There is no material at this stage to show that this petitioner has been in regular contact with accused Nos.1 to 3 and receiving the stolen properties. R.P. No. 468 and 620/2001 acquitted the petitioner. There is no material at this stage to show that this petitioner has been in regular contact with accused Nos.1 to 3 and receiving the stolen properties. However, the learned Government Advocate drawn my attention that this man is required in other cases also particularly in Crime No. 118/2016 of Sirsi Rural Police Station, Crime No. 119/2016 and 133/2016 of New Market Police Station, Sirsi, therefore, he appears to be a habitual receiver of the stolen property. 4. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced bail orders passed by the learned Magistrate, Sirsi in connection with the above said Crime numbers. 5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, during the course of evidence the prosecution has to establish the connection between accused No.3 and accused No.1 & 2 and then with accused No.4. As the offences are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life and as the petitioner has been in jail for considerable time, in my opinion, he is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the following order is passed. ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 325/2016 of Vidyagiri Police Station, Dharwad, for the offences punishable under Section 392, 413, 414 of IPC, subject to the following conditions. 1. The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering with the investigation or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. 3. The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for genuine reasons.