AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.S. Kempanna, J.—Petitioners who are arrayed as Accused Nos. 5 and 8 in S.C. No. 131/2013 pending on the file of Fast Track Court-13, Bangalore city registered for the offences under Sections 307, 201, 212, 120(B) of IPC r/w Sections 3, 5 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 are before this court seeking for grant of regular bail. It is the case of the prosecution that these two petitioners along with five other accused have attempted to commit murder of CW-1 with fire arms in connection with business transaction dealing in real estate and further they were found in possession of illegal fire arms and ammunitions which they had secured from accused No. 3 in the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the allegations insofar as these two petitioners who are now arrayed as Accused 5 and 8 in this case is that they had received fire arms and ammunitions from Accused No. 3 and no other overt act is attributed to them. Having regard to the overt act that has been attributed to them since the allegation is that they had received the fire arm and ammunitions from accused No. 3, the offence that could be made out against them is only u/s 212 of IPC and under Sections 3, 5 r/w 27 of Indian Arms Act, 1959. Learned counsel submits that the said offences are not punishable with extreme penalties. They are in custody since 1.11.2012. Learned counsel further submits that accused No. 4 in this very case has been granted bail by this court in Crl. P. No. 2494/2013 and as the case of these two petitioners stand in the same shoes as that of accused No. 4, they be granted the reliefs as sought for by them.
Per contra learned HCGP vehemently opposed the petition filed by the petitioners. A perusal of the final report that has been filed in the case would go to show that the offences alleged as per the overt act attributed to these two petitioners, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is only that they had received the fire arms and ammunitions from accused No. 3 in the case. There is no allegation that they were present at the time when the occurrence took place. Accused No. 4 who is alleged to have supplied fire arm and ammunition has been granted bail by this Court. These petitioners are in custody since 1.11.2012. Taking these factors into consideration I do not find any justification to decline the request of the petitioners. In the result, for the foregoing reasons I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
Petition is allowed.
The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge subject to the following conditions:-
The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
The petitioners shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing.