Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 885 (KAR)

Soma @ Somashekar v. State Of Karnataka

2020-05-19

H.P.SANDESH

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail of Accused No.3/Petitioner in Crime No.288/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 364A, 397, 323, 354C, 509, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000. 2. The brief facts of the case:- The allegations made in the complaint is that on 30.11.2018, the complainant who is the Ola Cab driver was near Wilson Garden and at that time, one of the customer booked his car from Mico back gate Masjid to pick the passenger from Dommasandra on Sarjapur Road. Along with the customer, another three persons boarded the car and after boarding the car, the complainant took them to Dommasandra and from that place to Chandapura. After dropping the customers, when the complainant demanded for money, the unknown persons took car and mobile from the complainant and detained him in the backside of the car. Thereafter, they threatened to kill him by showing the screwdriver. It is also the allegations that they took the complainant to Ramanagar, snatched his ATM Card and withdrew a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the complainants Card. Thereafter, he was taken to Chennapattana on the next day morning and took him to lodge. But some how he escaped through the ventilator of the lodge and reached the police station, where he lodged a complaint. When the police proceeded near the lodge, the said unknown persons escaped leaving the car near the lodge. Based on the complaint, the case was registered for the above offences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in her arguments would contend that this petitioner is Accused No.3. Accused Nos.2 and 4 were arrested and when they were interrogated, they disclosed the name of this petitioner. No recovery is made at the instance of this petitioner and he is innocent. The other accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. Petitioner/Accused No.3 was arrested on 02.03.2020 and he has been in judicial custody. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would contend that the incident took place in the year 2018 and he was absconded through out from 2018 to 2020. This petitioner had approached this Court earlier for anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.4058/2019 and the same was rejected vide order dated 27.08.2019. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would contend that the incident took place in the year 2018 and he was absconded through out from 2018 to 2020. This petitioner had approached this Court earlier for anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.4058/2019 and the same was rejected vide order dated 27.08.2019. Learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the same was dismissed on the ground that his presence is required for the purpose of identification. 5. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, this Court has to examine as to whether it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 6. Having taken note of the facts of the case and the allegations made against the petitioner herein, it is clear that Accused Nos.2 and 4 have been arrested and they have revealed the name of this petitioner. This petitioner was arrested in the month of March 2020 and he has been in judicial custody since then. Considering the factual aspects, no doubt there is an allegation that he was taken to a lodge, where he was confined and his ATM Card was snatched to withdraw the money. It is the contention of the State that the amount which was withdrawn by the accused was not recovered, since he was arrested almost after two years. When such being the case and other accused persons are enlarged on bail and also taking note of the gravity of the offences, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. subject to certain conditions to safeguard the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:- ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/Accused No.3 shall be released on bail in connection with (Crime No.288/2018 of Adugodi Police Station) C.C. No.21886/2019 on the file of VI ACMM, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 364A, 397, 323, 354C, 509 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.