R. Shekar, K.V. Shankar and P. Pavan Kumar @ Pavan vs State

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 13, 14 and 15 u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking release on bail for the offences punishable u/s 120B, 395 of IPC registered in respondent-police station in Crime No. 316/2013.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that one Abdul Razak of Calicut, Kerala State along with two of his relatives Sameer and Monaj left for Bangalore City for sight seeing 24.08.2013 at about 9.00 a.m. in a car bearing registration No. KL-11-AJ-1240 and reached Bangalore City at 2.30 p.m. and visited certain places in Bangalore and at 10.30 p.m. proceeded towards Mysore. Near Kengal Temple at about 11.30 p.m. a lorry was parked on the way and therefore, they stopped car behind the lorry. By that time the Scorpia cream colour car and red color qualis came there and at about 8 to 10 persons came down from those vehicles and broke open the glass of car. Complainant tried to run away. Complainant has stated that there were 5 person speaking Malayalam and they assaulted complainant and others with hands and took them towards Bangalore in Scorpia car and on the way robbed Titan watch, silver ring, mobile, 15 grams gold chain and cash Rs. 18,000/- from the pant of the complainant. Ultimately, it was at 12.30 a.m. on 25.08.2013 and then brought them back to some place and dropped them. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos. 13, 14 and 15 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, order passed by the Lower Court on the bail application, charge sheet and also the other materials produced. At the initial stage and as per the submissions of the complainant himself, it is the case of the prosecution that 5 persons took them and assaulted with hands and robbed the articles from them and perusing the materials collected in the investigation, the prosecution wanted to rely on the voluntary statements said to have been given by these petitioners/accused Nos. 13, 14, and 15 and also wanted to rely on the joint recovery from all the three accused persons i.e., mobile phone, cash and gold ornaments.

Looking to the charge sheet, the present accused persons have been arrayed as accused Nos. 13, 14 and 15, so prima facie it goes to show that the complainant has not at all mentioned in the complaint that there were 15 to 16 persons on the date of committing the alleged offence. Now, actually how many accused persons were involved in the alleged offence on the date of incident, is a matter to be ascertained by the Trial Court after considering the evidence produced before the Court. The investigation of the case is already completed and charge sheet has been filed in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioners also made a submission that some of the other accused persons have been granted bail by the order of this Court and hence, petitioners may also be admitted to bail. The offences alleged are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Regarding the apprehension of the prosecution that if petitioners are released on bail, they may tamper the prosecution witnesses and they may abscond, stringent conditions can be imposed, which will safeguard the prosecution witness. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. Hence, petition is allowed. Petitioners/accused Nos. 13, 14 and 15 are ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable u/s 120B, 395 of IPC registered in respondent-police station in Crime No. 316/2013, subject to the following conditions:

i. Each petitioner to execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- and to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

ii. The petitioners shall not tamper any prosecution witness, directly or indirectly.

iii. The petitioners to appear before the concerned Court regularly.