Barkatali Majeedsab vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—The petitioner has been arraigned as Accused No. 3 in S.C. No. 58/2012 pending before the Fast Track Court, Ranebennur. He along with other accused persons have been accused of committing offence punishable u/s 394 of the I.P.C. According to the case of the prosecution, at about 6.00 p.m. on 17.01.2011 the complainant viz., Shivu Son of Irappa Hubbali, as driver of lorry bearing registration No. KA 16/A-5540, left Bheema samudra in the said lorry, loaded with manganese ore and while he was proceeding in the lorry towards Kolhapur along with cleaner viz., Thimmaraju (C.W.8), in the early hours of 18.01.2011 near Magod bridge on N.H.4, four persons on two motor-cycles came from behind, overtook the lorry and stopped the motor-cycles in front of the lorry. As a result, he also stopped the lorry and thereafter, those four persons came near the lorry, threatened the driver as well as the cleaner by showing knife and other weapons, demanded the driver to give money; thereafter one of them assaulted the driver, snatched cash of Rs. 2,800/- from his pocket and also a mobile handset and went away from that place. In respect of this incident, said Shivu lodged a report before the Halageri Police at about 3.00 a.m. on 18.01.2011, based on which, case in Crime No. 17/2011 came to be registered and investigation was taken up. In the said report, the complainant had stated in categorical terms that the assailants had covered their faces with black cloths, as such, he was not in a position to identify any of them.

According to the prosecution, this petitioner was apprehended on 30.01.2011 by Harappanahalli Police in connection with the case in Crime No. 8/2011 of that police Station and during interrogation, he made voluntary statement disclosing his complicity in the commission of offence involved in this case and pursuant to his voluntary statement, the investigating officer recovered a sum of Rs. 700/- from the petitioner and thereafter, he was subjected to judicial custody. On coming to know of the involvement of this petitioner in this case, the investigating officer in Crime No. 17/2011 secured the presence of this petitioner by obtaining body warrant and thereafter, he was subjected to judicial custody in this case also. His application filed before the Sessions Judge for bail came to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition seeking bail.

The petition is opposed by the respondent/State.

I have heard both sides''.

As noticed above, even in the complaint lodged at the earliest point of time, the complainant has categorically stated that the assailants had covered their faces with black clothes, as such, assailants were not identifiable. Even according to the complainant, the assailants were strangers to him and he comes to know about the names of the assailants through the police. The only connecting link to connect the petitioner with the crime alleged is the recovery of cash of Rs. 700/- on the voluntary statements said to have been made by him.

It is brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the similarly placed accused Nos. 2 and 4 in the case, this Court has already granted bail in Criminal Petition No. 11669/2011 connected with Crl. P. 10010/ 2012. Therefore, the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of Accused Nos. 2 and 4. Therefore, even on the principles of parity, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view of the above, the petition is allowed.

The petitioner is hereby ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 17/2011 of Halageri Police Station (S.C. No. 58/2012 before the Fast Track Court, Ranebennur) on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two local sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge and subject to further conditions that,

(i) Petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with the prosecution witness in any manner;

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all hearing dates without fail;

(iii) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions without express permission;

(iv) Petitioner shall not indulge in any acts similar to one alleged; and

(v) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on 10th and 25th of each calendar month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the disposal of the case.