Sri. Narasimha Murthi vs State of Karnataka

B.V. Pinto

This petition is filed u/s 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail in Crime No.145/2011 of Nandagudi Police Station, registered on 04.07.2011 for an offence u/s 395 IPC.

It is the case of the complainant Sri R.V. Shridhar Kumar that in the intervening night of 3 and 04.07.2011 at about 12.05 hours (mid-night) when he was going on the Kolar - Bangalore Road, in his Swift Car bearing No.KA 61 Z 6209, one Tata Innova car came and stopped in front of his car and obstructed from going further. Immediately, another Tata Sumo came and 10 persons got down from the said vehicle and broke the hind glass of Swift Car. The persons thereafter, asked the complainant to get down from the car and also the inmate Sri Prakash. When they got down from the car, they were made to sit in the Tata Sumo vehicle and thereafter, they took them towards Hoskote and in the meantime, snatched Rs. 2,500/-, Nokia Mobile and another Nokia Mobile, Titan watch and Rs. 6,000/- from Prakash. They also assaulted them thereafter, near the Hoskote town in a tank bed, they were made to get down from the Tata Sumo and further snatched a cash of Rs. 2,200/-, 70 grams of gold chain, rado watch and bracelets of 34 grams from the possession of the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the case came to be registered. The accused No.1 was secured under body warrant on 13.09.2011 and accused Nos.6 and 7 were arrested on 16.09.2011 and based on the statement of the petitioners, rado watch was seized from the possession of accused No.7 and Tata Sumo vehicle used in the commission of the offence was recovered at the instance of accused No.6. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 was not present at the scene of occurrence but he is the mastermind behind the case.

Heard Sri Sapthagiri and Sri Mylaraiah, learned Counsels for the petitioners and Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned HCGP for the Respondent/State.

Learned Counsels for the petitioners submits that there is no test identification parade conducted in this case and that the involvement of the petitioners are not proved at this stage. Hence, they submit that the petitions may be allowed.''

Learned HCGP opposes the application for bail and submits that the recovery from accused Nos.6 and 7 of the articles belonging to the complainant clearly establishes that they are involved in the offence. Hence, he submits that the petitions may be dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioners are accused Nos.4 & 5, who are similarly placed in Crl.P.No.5410/2011 & Crl.P.No.5828/2011, who have been granted bail by this Hon''ble Court. Having regard to the aforesaid fact these petitioners also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

I have gone through the materials on record. Having regard to the fact that no test identification parade is conducted and the incident has taken place in the night, without further expressing any opinion, I am inclined to grant bail. Hence, the petitions are allowed on the following conditions:-

a. The petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

b. The petitioners shall appear before the police station once in a week for a period of six months and thereafter, once in a month till the disposal of the case.

c. If it is disclosed that the petitioners are involved in any other case., the bail granted herein shall be automatically cancelled and the Court before which such fact is brought to the notice, shall remand the petitioner to custody.

d. Since the investigation is not completed, the petitioners are directed to appear before the police station as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.