Srinivasa vs State

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner-accused No. 2 u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offence punishable u/s 392 of IPC registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 163/2009.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the averments in the complaint that complainant one Nalinakshi lodged the complaint alleging that on 25-11-2009 at about 11.30 a.m. when she was going towards Boovanahalli hospital, three persons came on Splendor motor bike, slow down the vehicle nearby her and one among them has forcibly snatched her Mangalya chain weighing about 20 grams and when she shouted for help those three persons fled away on the said motor bike. On the basis of the said complaint police have registered the case on 30-11-2009 for the alleged offence.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that looking to the averments in the complaint it is against three unknown persons the FIR was registered. Learned counsel also made the submission that though it is alleged that the incident took place on 25-11-2009, but complaint was filed after 5 days delay i.e., on 30-11-2009 and there is no satisfactory explanation by the prosecution regarding the delay. Learned counsel also made the submission that the other accused persons were granted with bail by the order of the trial Court. Hence, he submitted that petitioner may be admitted to bail by imposing any reasonable conditions.

As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that there is a prima-facie material placed by the prosecution to show the involvement of the present petitioner also in the commission of the alleged offence. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other charge sheet material produced in the case.

Looking to the averments in the complaint and as it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the first instance the complaint was against three unknown persons and there is a delay of five days in lodging the complaint after happening of the alleged incident. The petitioner in his petition has contended that he is innocent and not at all involved in the case and he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. The offence alleged u/s 392 of IPC is triable by the Magistrate Court and it is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. As it is submitted by both the sides that investigation of the case is already completed and charge sheet has been filed, so also the other accused persons were granted with bail, under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offence punishable u/s 392 of IPC registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 163/2009, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate Court;

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

(iii) The petitioners shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for; and

(iv) The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within thirty days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond and also the surety bond.