Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 48 (KAR)

Arun Kumar @ Arun v. State of Karnataka

2022-01-10

H.P.SANDESH

body2022
JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. - This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.31/2021 of Byadarahalli Police Station, Bengaluru District, for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 427 and 450 of IPC, Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act and Section 25(1B) (b) and 4 of the Arms Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that these two petitioners along with other accused persons committed the offence of dacoity of an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- and also caused injury to the complainant witnesses and recoveries are made at the instance of the petitioners and also the mobile. The police after the investigation of the matter filed the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 427 and 450 of IPC, Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act and Section 25(1B) (b) and 4 of the Arms Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the other accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, except these two petitioners. The only allegation against the petitioners is that they snatched the money and the recovery at the instance of accused No.4 is Rs.25,000/- and accused No.5 is Rs.13,000/- i.e., the amount which was remaining after spending and mobile. Accused No.4 went inside the shop wearing the helmet with an intention to screen the evidence and this incident was taken place on 17.01.2021. These petitioners were apprehended on 23.01.2021 and they are in custody from last one year and there is no need of custodial trial. The learned counsel submits that there is no any criminal antecedents against the petitioners. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that these two petitioners were the employees of the complainant Company and they indulged in committing of offence of dacoity along with other accused and enlarging of other accused cannot be a ground to enlarge them on bail. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, the allegation made against these two petitioners is that they were the employees of the complainant Company. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, the allegation made against these two petitioners is that they were the employees of the complainant Company. There is no any other criminal antecedents against the petitioners and it appears that due to ill-will against the Company, the alleged offence could have been committed. When such being the facts of the case and also charge-sheet has already been filed and investigation has been completed and other two persons have been enlarged on bail, it is not a fit case to continue the petitioners for custodial trial and hence it is appropriate to invoke Section 439 of Cr.P.C. with certain conditions. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.31/2021 of Byadarahalli Police Station, Bengaluru District, for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 427 and 450 of IPC, Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act and Section 25(1B) (b) and 4 of the Arms Act, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall execute their personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against them is disposed of.