Jalal Pasha vs State By D.J. Hally P.S. Bangalore Represented By State Public Prosecutor High Court Complex Bangalore - 560001

S. Vishwajith Shetty, J

Accused No.6 in Crime No.71/2021 registered by Devarajeevanahalli police station, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25-1(B) of the Arms Act, 1959, is before this Court under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It is the case of the prosecution that complainant who was the police inspector of CCB, Bangalore had received credible information on 23.02.2021 that about 5-6 persons had assembled near Parachoot Military Ground, Modi Garden within the jurisdiction of D.J.Halli police station holding deadly weapons in their hands and they were planning to do some illegal acts. It is in this background the complainant along with staff, had raided the spot and apprehended 5 accused persons on the spot and after bringing them to the police station, had lodged a complaint which had resulted in registering the FIR in Crime No.71/2021 against 6 persons. In the FIR, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.6. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had conspired with other accused persons for committing the offence. Apprehending arrest in the said case, he had filed Crl.Misc.No.25638/2023 which was dismissed on 08.08.2023. Therefore, he is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the petitioner was not in the spot and he was in judicial custody in another case. Except the two cases, he has no other criminal cases against him. He accordingly prays to allow the petition.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition. He submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.

As per the complaint averments, on credible information, complainant and staff had raided the spot on 23.02.2021 and had apprehended 5 accused persons who were armed and had planned to commit an offence. Allegation against the petitioner is that he had conspired with the other accused persons to commit an offence. Undisputedly, the petitioner was not present in the spot along with other accused persons. The material on record also goes to show that the petitioner was in judicial custody in another criminal case in which he has been released on bail subsequently.

Learned High Court Government Pleader does not dispute that except the aforesaid two cases, the petitioner has no other criminal cases registered against him. The alleged offences in the present case are neither exclusively punishable with death nor with life imprisonment. The accused persons who were present in the spot, have already been arrested and weapons in their possession have been recovered. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the following

ORDER

Petition is allowed. The respondent - Police or any other police in the State of Karnataka are directed to release the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No.71/2021 registered by Devarajeevanahalli police station for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25-1(B) of the Arms Act, 1959, subject to the following conditions:

The Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(One lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

Petitioner shall regularly appear before the Trial Court without fail unless exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.

Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witness and he shall co-operate with the police for investigation and appear before them whenever called upon.

The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future.