Shaik Khader vs State

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner-accused No. 4 u/s 439 of Cr. P.C. seeking his release on bail for the alleged offence punishable u/s 392 of IPC registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 157/2012. Charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 413 R/w Section 34 of IPC.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 4 and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that so far as the alleged offence u/s 392 of IPC is concerned, the present petitioner is totally unconnected. He further submitted that even according to the prosecution material, the allegations against the present petitioner is that, a gold chain has been seized from the possession of the present petitioner and hence counsel made the submission that, at the most the offence alleged u/s 413 R/w 34 of IPC will be attracted for receiving the stolen property. He also submitted that under the similar set of allegations and under the same mahazar, the Sessions Court at Mysore has already granted bail to the present petitioner in respect of Cr. No. 90/2012 of Kuvempunagar Police station. The counsel further submitted that looking to the prosecution materials, except the alleged seizure of the gold chain from the petitioner-accused No. 4, there is no other materials produced by the prosecution to show his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence even u/s 392 of IPC. The Counsel also made the submission that except the offences registered which are similar in nature, there are no other criminal cases registered against the present petitioner and there is no conviction for any other offences. Hence, he submitted that as the offence alleged u/s 413 of IPC is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing reasonable conditions.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that there is a prima facie material produced by the prosecution to show his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. The offences are serious in nature. He also made the submission that the present petitioner is habitual offender involved in many other criminal cases also. Hence, he made the submission that petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on 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 filed by the petitioner. Looking to the materials on record, so far the snatching of the gold chain even according to the prosecution case, it is alleged that accused Nos. 1 to 3 involved in the commission of the alleged offence and as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 4 is concerned, there is no allegations with regard to involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence u/s 392 of IPC, in snatching the gold chain. But the prosecution material, so also the seizure mahazar dated 18.1.2013, produced at page-26 of the petition, go to show that Investigating Officer has recovered the gold chain from the present petitioner. So this prima facie goes to show the involvement of the present petitioner so far as the alleged offence u/s 413 of IPC is concerned. The contention of the petitioner is that he has not involved in the commission of alleged offence u/s 392 of IPC and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate Court and are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, looking to these materials on record, and as the similar set of allegations based on seizure mahazar, present petitioner has been already granted bail by the Sessions Court registered in Cr. No. 90/2012. I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be granted with bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner-accused No. 4 is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 413 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 157/2012, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner 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 shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.