Satishkumar (a). Sathish and Harish vs State

R.B. Budihal, J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 7 and 9 u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the offence punishable u/s 395 of IPC registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 32/2014.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused No. 7 and 9 and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his argument submitted that sofar as the present petitioners are concerned, they have been arrested by the police only on the basis of the statement given by the co-accused persons. He further made the submission that except the said statement there is no other material placed by the prosecution about the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offence. He also submitted that the petitioners are innocent and not involved in the commission of the alleged offence and the offence is also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of argument submitted that sofar as the petitioner-accused No. 7 is concerned, there is a recovery of mobile phone from him by the Investigating Officer during investigation and this recovery of the mobile phone clearly goes to show the involvement of the petitioner-accused No. 7 in the commission of the alleged offence. He made the submission that the said mobile phone belongs to the complainant. Hence, he submitted that even there are 10 other cases pending against accused No. 7 who is petitioner No. 1 herein. He also submitted that sofar as accused No. 9 is concerned, two cases are pending. Hence, petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also the order passed by the lower Court on the bail application. The materials goes to show that during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer has arrested these two petitioners and from petitioner No. 1 who is accused No. ?'', mobile phone was seized in the presence of the panch witnesses and the materials also goes to show that the said mobile phone belongs to the complainant in this case. The materials goes to show and as submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader that sofar as accused No. 7 who is petitioner No. 1, 10 other cases are also pending against him, so it goes to show that petitioner No. 1 is having criminal antecedents and he is an habitual offender. Sofar as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, as it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that no material has been placed by the prosecution to show his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that sofar as petitioner No. 1-Sathiskumar who is accused No. 7, there is a prima-facie material placed by the prosecution about the involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. Hence, he is not entitled to be granted with bail. But sofar as petitioner No. 2-Harish is concerned, he has made out a case for his release on bail. Hence, the petition in respect of petitioner No. 1-accused No. 7 is rejected and petition in respect of petitioner No. 2-accused No. 9 is allowed.

Accordingly, Crl.P. No. 1957/2014 is partly allowed.

The petitioner No. 2-Harish is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable u/s 395 of IPC registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 32/2014, subject to following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner No. 2-Harish shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;

(ii) The petitioner No. 2 shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) The petitioner No. 2 shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.