Sumanth vs State of Karnataka

G. Narendra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. SPP.

The case of the de facto complainant is that he is the driver-cum-owner of the lorry bearing registration mark No. KA-25/B9619 and that on 29.8.2015 at about 22.30 hours, he left his house in the said lorry and parked it near Matha Durgadevi Dhaba and told one Ishwar, owner of the dhaba, to wake him up on the morning of 30.8.2015 and thereafter he proceeded to go to sleep in the lorry itself. It is stated that at about 00.30 hours, four unknown persons came near his lorry, pulled him out of the lorry and tied him with a rope and when he tried to scream, one of the accused threatened him that if he tried to scream, he would be assaulted and one of the accused covered his mouth with a piece of cloth and two of the accused persons forcibly took out Rs. 5,000/- from his pocket and thereafter they dragged him to the other side of the road, pushed him into the field, took the key of the lorry and drove away with the lorry. Half an hour thereafter the owner of the dhaba, Mr. Ishwar, came out of the dhaba towards the fields to relieve himself and there he having found the complainant, he removed the rope and cloth. Thereafter the said Ishwar made a telephone call to the PSI of Chittguppa police station. When the Police arrived there, the complainant narrated the entire incident and after recording the complaint, Crime No. 133/2015 was registered against unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 308 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that one Vinod was arrested at about 6 a.m. on 30.8.2015 on suspicion and on interrogation he disclosed to the commission of the offence and also the names of three other accomplice and one such name is that of the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as A4. Thereafter the respondent/police arrested the petitioner at about 15.00 hours on 30.8.2015 and since then he is in custody.

The petitioner''s counsel would further submit that the accused is innocent of the offences and that he has not been identified by the complainant. He would also submit that the petitioner is married and having family to look after. He would submit that the petitioner is not at all involved in the commission of the offence. He would further submit that no recoveries have been made from the petitioner or at the instance of the petitioner and that the recovery of the lorry and the amount is at the instance of A3 only. He would further submit that even as per the investigation the lorry had been abandoned at a short distance away and hence the only thing that is recovered is that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- and that too at the instance of A3. He would also point out that even as per the investigation the complainant has not suffered any injuries nor does the complaint disclose the possession and use of any dangerous weapons and more importantly he would submit that the petitioner does not have any criminal record or is he a habitual offender.

The learned Addl. SPP would concur and state that the petitioner has no criminal records and he is not involved in any other criminal case.

Petitioner''s counsel would further submit that the petitioner is a driver and is engaged on daily wage basis and that his family is virtually on the streets in view of prolonged incarceration and in view of the above facts and circumstances, he would pray that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP would submit that if the offences are proved, it would entail the petitioner to undergo sentence of 10 years imprisonment. He would admit that neither charge sheet has been filed nor has any identification parade conducted. He would also submit that the petitioner has been arrested only on the statement of the co-accused and as on today, there is no material to indict the petitioner in the commission of the offence.

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. It is seen that the petitioner is aged about 35 years and he has already been kept in custody for the last of more than 2 1/2 months. Investigation has not made much progress and the petitioner has been detained and arrested solely on the ground of the statement of the co- accused.

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed subject to the following conditions:--

"i) The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail subject to him executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and furnishing two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate;

ii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court; In the eventuality of his having to leave the jurisdiction, he has to intimate the jurisdictional police in writing, furnishing therein his next address, contact number etc. and thereafter leave the place after concurrence by the jurisdictional police;

iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; The petitioner shall not intimidate the complainant or interfere in the investigation."

Ordered accordingly.