K.A. Sudheer vs State Of Karnataka

M G Uma, J

The petitioner-accused No.6 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.03/2024 of Bantwala RuralPolice Station, pending in C.C.No.513/2024 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwala, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397 and 411 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Marita Synthiya Pinto.

Heard Sri. Pramod M, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

REASONS

The petitioner being accused No.6 is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 22.01.2024 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Initially, FIR came to be registered against 4 unknown persons on the basis of the first information lodged by the victim. During investigation, the petitioner and the co-accused were apprehended and the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos. 1 to 7 for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 397 and 411 of IPC. It is the specific allegation made against the present petitioner that, he was the member of unlawful assembly and gone to the house of the victim along with accused Nos. 1 to 5. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 have barged inside the house of the victim and committed dacoity, while the petitioner along with accused No.5 was having watch and ward outside the house. After commission of the offence, all the 6 accused have fled from the scene of occurrence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that accused No.7 is already enlarged on bail. Accused No.7 is the receiver of the stolen gold ornaments and only Section 411 is invoked against him. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of parity.

It is stated that CW-1 identified accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the test identification parade. It is also stated that CW-4 and CW-10 are the eye-witnesses, who have seen all the 6 accused persons. But no test identification parade was conducted to enable the witnesses to identify the petitioner. However, it is stated that CW-4 and CW-10 have identified the petitioner in the police station. Admittedly, nothing has been recovered from the petitioner by the Investigating Officer. In view of all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

Learned High Court Government Pleader at this stage submits that, the petitioner is having criminal antecedent as Crl.P.No.110/2020 of Bangalore City Market Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC is registered against him. However, the petitioner is on bail in the said case. The prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail in the said case if there is violation of any conditions imposed while enlarging on bail.

In view of the above, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.03/2024 of Bantwala RuralPolice Station, pending in C.C.No.513/2024 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwala, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.