Lakshminarayana R. vs State by Kamakshipalya Police Station

Budihal R.B, J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused 2 u/s 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking his release on bail for the alleged offence punishable u/s 395 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 66 of 2014. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused 2 and also the learned MGCP for the respondent-State.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that though it is alleged that the incident took place on 11-2-2014, complaint has been filed on 13-2-2014 and hence, there is a delay of two days, which is not properly explained by the prospection. Learned Counsel also made the submission that as per the case of the complainant, it is specifically mentioned that six persons came in a car at about 12.30 p.m. and stopped the car in front of the house of the complainant, out of six, two persons stood near the car and four persons entered into her house and committed the robbery of Rs. 10,125/- and also the silver ankle chain and waist chain. Learned Counsel made the submission that looking to the remand application, the police have also introduced the seventh person that he was also involved on the date of incident in committing the alleged offence. Hence, he submitted that there is no basis for the police to introduce the seventh person, which itself is creating a serious doubt about case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the present petitioner is a student, studying in a college and next month he is having his examination. Hence, he submitted that the only material as per the case of the prosecution that from the present petitioner a sum of Rs. 600/- has been recovered. Learned Counsel submitted that whether that Rs. 600/- is belonging to the complainant or to the petitioner himself is a matter to be ascertained during the course of trial. Hence, he submitted to admit the petitioner on bail by imposing any reasonable conditions.

As against this, the learned HCGP during the course of his arguments submitted that recovery of amount of Rs. 600/- from the possession of the petitioner itself goes to show his involvement in the commission of alleged offence. He also submitted that, looking to the other witnesses recorded by the police during investigation, it will make out a prima facie case against the present petitioner in committing the alleged offence. Learned HCGP further made the submission that there are four other cases also pending against the petitioner. Hence, he is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, order passed by the lower Court on the bail application and other materials placed on record, so also the remand application copy produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing the matter. Looking to the complaint and also the FIR, at the first instance it was registered against six unknown persons and during the course of investigation the present petitioner is arrayed as accused 2 along with other accused persons. Perusing the complaint averments, out of six persons, four have entered into the house and two of them having mask on their faces. Therefore, the identity of the said two persons is also to be established by the prosecution, who are those two persons wearing the mask on their faces? As it is rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the (sic)eged incident is said to have taken place during the daylight and there cannot be any confusion. As per the averment in the complaint six persons are involved, but looking to the remand application seventh person is also involved in the alleged offence as per the police. So far as the present petitioner is concerned investigating materials goes to show that at his instance a sum of Rs. 600/- has been seized from the present petitioner. Therefore, looking to these materials on record as it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and produced the document to show that the petitioner is having his examination in the next month and as the alleged offence is also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he can be admitted to bail by imposing stringent conditions to secure his presence before the Investigating Officer as well as the Trial Court. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused 2 is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable u/s 395 of IPC registered in Crime No. 66 of 2014, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.