AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 418 wordsK.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent - State. Perused the record.
The petitioner is accused No. 4 in C.C. No. 157/2014 on the file of J.M.F.C. I Court, Hubli, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 400 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''I.P.C.'' for brevity).
The allegations against present petitioner are that petitioner along with other accused persons were preparing for commission of dacoity at Airport road, at Tarihal bridge near Diamond Pipe Factory. The police, who were on patrolling duty on 05.11.2013 observed some persons by putting some stones across the road, were sitting by the side of the road during night hours. On suspicion, police have caught hold them and on enquiry they have disclosed their names as Gangappa, Raju, Kiran and Hussain. However, one person was successful in running away from the spot, whose name was also divulged by others as Mahadevappa. The Police, in fact have recovered some incriminating articles, particularly from this petitioner a club was recovered from him. Except that, no other incriminating materials were recovered from this particular person.
The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that no previous bad antecedents are reported against the petitioner and no criminal cases are pending against him.
Insofar as accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they have criminal background and some cases are pending against them. Looking to the above said circumstances, whether this person had actually been to the spot with other accused persons to commit dacoity or not, has to be established during the course of full dressed trial. Except recovery of one stick from the petitioner, no other materials are available. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
Petition filed u/s 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is hereby allowed. Consequently, petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to following conditions:
i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of committal/trial Court, as the case may be.
ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) Petitioner shall make himself available to the trial Court on all the future hearing dates, unless prevented by any genuine cause.
iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of trial Court without prior permission, till the case registered against him is disposed of.
