P.M. Jaleel @ Abdul Jaleel vs State of Karnataka <BR> P.H. Shahid @ Sukur and B.M. Ali Asgar Vs The State of Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.—Heard both sides in respect of bail sought by the Petitioners. The Petitioner in Crl.P. No. 437/11 is A-4, whereas Petitioners in Crl.P. No. 536/11 aie A-1 and A-3.

All the accused persons are accused of having committed, the offence u/s 394 of IPC and the prosecution case in short is that, on 9.6.10 at about 4.10 p.m. the complainant on his motorcycle was going carrying cash of Rs. 16,96,730/- and some unknown persons came in a red colour Maruthi car and dashed to the motorcycle and after throwing chili powder on the face of the complainant, they robbed the complainant of the aforementioned amount.

Submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Crl.P. No. 437/11 is that, except Rs. 10,000/- recovered from this Petitioner which amount belongs to the Petitioner, there is no other material to involve this Petitioner and as far as other Petitioners are concerned, submission made by the learned Counsel is that, from A-1 the car was seized and Rs. 8 lakhs and odd was also seized and from A-3 also Rs. 10,500/- was seized and from A-2 Rs. 1 lakn was seized. However, there is discrepancy in the prosecution case as to the colour of the car and the car number has not been clearly indicated and moreover, it is unlikely that the complainant would have withdrawn the amount from the bank at. 3.30 p.m., that too in a village.

Submission of learned Addl. S.P.P. for the State is that, the T.I. parade is pending and there are number of eye witnesses who have seen the accused persons and the accused persons are required for the purpose of identification and moreover amount involved is huge sum of rupees and much of the amount has been recovered from the accused persons.

In the light of the above submission put forward and T.I. parade yet to take place, grant of bail at this stage is likely to lead to threatening of all witnesses who are said to be students.

The petitions are therefore rejected. However, this shall not come in the way of the Petitioners moving for bail after completion of the T.I. parade. The prosecution is directed to ensure that the T.I. parade is held without any further delay.