High CourtsSingle Bench

Mahesha vs The State of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 14 March 2011 · Citation: (2011) 03 KAR CK 0315

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.S. Pachhapure, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 1106 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

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

8 paragraphs · 485 words

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The complaint-Sathyanarayan used to manufacture golden ornaments and the shop owners used to give him gold for the said purpose. On 05.10.2010, the complainant went to Coimbatore with another person, wherein ornaments were prepared and he was carrying the same in a suitcase to Bangalore. When they came near the East Railway Station, Bangalore, took an auto-rickshaw. When they were proceeding in the said auto, near Diwars Bar, 4 persons, were standing by the side with 2 motorcycles came and stopped the auto. when the complainant shouted, amongst 4 persons, one person told the complainant that he has been waiting for the last one month and saying so, snatched the suitcase, containing the golden ornaments, weighing about 4.3 kgs. The said suitcase also contained a mobile phone. After snatching the suitcase, all of them went away on the motorcycles. Later it is on 08.10.2010, a complaint came to be filed against the unknown persons and during the investigation, the Petitioner has been arrested and has been arrayed as accused No. 5.

2.

The perusal of the complaint reveals that there were 4 persons standing near the Diwars Bar and amongst 4, one person snatched the suitcase containing the golden ornaments. There is a delay of 3 days in lodging the complaint. These are all the matters, which will have to be explained by the prosecution during the course of trial. The only material against the Petitioner is that the motorcycle was owned by him and the 16 gms. of golden chain has been recovered at his instance. Anyhow, taking into consideration the delay in lodging the complaint and further only 16 gms. of golden ornaments has been recovered at the instance of the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the bail could be granted by imposing stringent condition/s.

3.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has filed a memo stating that if the Petitioner is released on bail, the Petitioner would attend the jurisdictional Police Station till the conclusion of the trial.

In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. The Petitioner is ordered be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000-00 with one solvent surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge with further following conditions:

1) The Petitioner shall be made available for interrogation by a police officer as and when he is required.

2) He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

3) He shall attend the Court as and when directed.

4) He shall appear before the Police Station concerned every Sunday in between 10.00 and 11.00 a.m. till the conclusion of the trial as per the undertaking given by him.