Mahesha @ Mahi vs State

B. Manohar, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable u/s 395 of IPC, registered by the Jayapura Police Station, Mysore District in Crime No. 248/2012.

On the complaint made by one N. Prasanna alleging that on 6.12.2012 at about 10.15 p.m., the complainant and his friends were moving around the R.T. Nagar water tank to watch the movement of birds. At that time, three persons came in a motor bike and enquired about the complainant. Thereafter another five persons came and they robbed their mobile phones, purses and other valuables worth Rs. 54,800/-. The police have registered a case against the petitioner on the ground that the mobile of the complainant was seized from the hands of the petitioner. Hence petitioner is also involved in the dacoit committed on 6.12.2012 and police arrested him. He approached the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysore seeking regular bail. The said application was rejected by the court below on 22.3.2014. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking regular bail.

The petitioner has contended that he has not involved in any of the offences and he was falsely implicated in the said case on the seizure of the mobile from the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that he purchased the said mobile from some person, hence he had not involved in any of the criminal activities and sought for his release on bail.

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent contended that complainant''s mobile was in possession of the petitioner. Though in the complaint, the name of the accused is not mentioned, the seizure of the mobile itself establishes that the petitioner was involved in the dacoity committed on 6.12.2012 and sought for dismissal of the bail petition.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant records and the order passed by the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysore.

The records clearly disclose that the petitioner was arrested on 14.9.2013 with regard to the alleged incident took place on 6.12.2012 on the basis of the seizure of complainant''s mobile phone from the petitioner. The specific case of the petitioner is that he had purchased the said mobile phone from his friend. He was not involved in any of the activity and he was falsely implicated in Crime No. 248/2012. The record further discloses that in the complaint made on 7.2.2012 by N. Prasanna, the name of the accused person was not mentioned except alleging that initially three persons enquired subsequently another five persons came and enquired and all the eight persons robbed the complainant and his friends. However, in the complaint, number of the bike and names of the persons who were involved in the robbery was also not mentioned and Identification parade has also not been conducted. In the absence of the above, only on the seizure of the mobile phone from the hands of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner is involved in the robbery. Apart from that the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner is under judicial custody from 14.9.2013. In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for bail.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner - accused No. 1 is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable u/s 395 of IPC, registered by the Jayapura Police, in Crime No. 248/12, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal Court;

(ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Police Officer as and when he is required;

(iii) The petitioner 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iv) The petitioner shall attend the Court as and when he is directed;

(v) The petitioners shall not leave the limits of the Mysore City without prior permission from the Jurisdictional Court.