N. Harsha vs State of Karnataka

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner, who is arrayed as A. 1 in C.C. No. 4262/2013 on the file of the JMFC, Devanahalli, registered for the offences under Sections 120(B), 395, 397, 402, 412 of IPC, is before this Court praying for releasing him on bail. It is the case of the prosecution, on 18.7.2013 at about 10.30 p.m. this petitioner along with other accused in the case had intercepted tanker lorry bearing No. KA-01-C-5061 which was carrying ATF petrol on the road leading from Boodigere to Bagalur and there after assaulting C.W. 1 - driver of the lorry and also C.W. 2 - cleaner took cash of Rs. 4,500/-, which was on the person of CW 2 and further drove the tanker with the help of A. 14, which contained petrol valued at Rs. 20 lakh and sold the petrol to A. 4 to A. 7 in the case and thus they have committed the aforementioned offences.

The present petitioner came to be arrested on 25.7.2013 and since then he is in custody.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, A. 4 to A. 7 in the case have been released on bail by this Court. No recovery has been made at the instance of this petitioner. All the recovery that has made i.e. cash, petrol and car are at the instance of A. 2. He submits, the petitioner is an young boy, prosecuting his studies in Polytechnic. He is in custody since 25.7.2013 and he is no more required for the purposes of investigation. Hence, he be released on bail.

Application filed by the petitioner is opposed by the State. The offence alleged against the petitioner and others in the case is one u/s 397 of IPC apart from other allied offences. Material on record reveals, this petitioner along with other accused have intercepted the tanker lorry driven by C.W. 1 on Boodigere to Bangaluru road, assaulted him and also the cleaner C.W. 2 who was in the lorry, took cash of Rs. 4,500/- which was on the person of C.W. 2 and further drove the petrol tank with the help of A. 14, which contained petrol valued at Rs. 20 lakhs, sold the petrol to A. 4 to A. 7 and thus have committed the aforementioned offences. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends, no recovery has been made at the instance of this petitioner, the voluntary statement that was brought to my notice by the learned High Court Government Pleader discloses, he divulged to the police he would point out the place where the petrol was sold by him. Though the recovery of the said petrol has been made at the instance of A. 1, since this petitioner was also present at the time of occurrence and has involved in committing the offence u/s 397 of IPC which is graver than Section 395 of IPC and as the case of A. 4 to A. 7 does stand on a different footing than that of the petitioner, as they are alleged to have purchased the petrol from these two accused, in the circumstances, it is not a fit case to grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and it is dismissed.