SYED PARVEZ & ORS. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Since these two petitions are in respect of same crime and since common questions of law and facts are involved in these two petitions, they are

taken up together to dispose of them by this common order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.9068/2017 filed a memo dated 03.01.2018 seeking withdrawal of the petition in respect of petitioner

Nos.2 and 3, who are accused Nos.3 and 4.

Said memo is placed on record.

Crl.P.9068/2017 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 and Crl.P.9145/2017 is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4, both the petitions are

filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 397, 120B of IPC, registered in

respondent - police station Crime No.142/2017.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused in respect of both the petitions and also the learned High

Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments is that one Ajaz Pasha lodged a complaint stating that on 10.07.2017 at

about 11.00 p.m., the complainant was going on his two wheeler vehicle from Basavanagudi to Kalasipalya to leave his friend Mujahid Pasha on

MTB Road. At that time, near Rajagopal garden 8 - 9 persons came in a two wheeler vehicles and in one auto rickshaw, they restrained the

complainant and his friend. However, the complainant''s friend ran away and escaped, two accused persons threatened the complainant by

showing a knife and took him in the auto rickshaw near Gopalan Mall on Mysore road and they took away the purse of the complainant and took

him to different places in Shivajinagar and other places and they brought him to M.G.Road and demanded Rs.10 lakhs from him for his release.

They asked the complainant to make a phone call to his father and ask him to the arrange the money. After some time, the complainant''s father

made a phone call to the accused persons and they told him to come to the Bowring Hospital and give Rs.5 lakhs. As directed by the accused,

complainant''s father gave Rs.5 lakhs to the accused and released the complainant and his vehicle. On the basis of the complaint, case came to be

registered for the said offence.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of hearing the petition, has submitted that accused Nos.5 and 2 have already been granted

bail. It is their submission that similar set of allegations are made against all the accused persons. It is also submitted that now the investigation is

completed and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, submitted that present petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

Learned HCGP has opposed the petitions contending that even from the present petitioners also the amount was recovered during the course of

investigation. Looking to the charge sheet material there is a prima-facie case has been made out against the petitioners herein, hence, they are not

entitled for grant of bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in both the bail petitions, FIR, complaint, so also, the order dated 12.12.2017 passed in

Crl.Misc.No.9667/2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in respect of accused No.2, and the order passed by this Court dated

15.11.2017 passed in Crl.P.7721/2017 in respect of accused No.5.

Looking to the bail order passed by this Court, this Court after considering the entire merits of the case, ultimately allowed the petition and

granted bail to the petitioner by imposing reasonable conditions. The petitioners herein have contended that they are innocent and they have been

falsely implicated in the case and also undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Now the investigation is completed and

charge sheet has been filed.

Perusing the complaint averments and other prosecution material, similar set of allegations are made against the accused persons stating that

there were totally 8-9 persons. Therefore, on the ground of parity the present petitioners, who are accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are also entitled for

grant of bail.

Accordingly, Crl.P.9068/2017 in so far as petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is concerned is allowed and petition in respect of petitioner Nos.2

and 3, who are accused Nos.3 and 4, is dismissed as withdrawn in view of the memo dated 3.01.2018.

The Crl.P.No.9145/2017 is allowed. Petitioner No.1 in Crl.P.9068/2017 and petitioners in Crl.P.9145/2017, who are accused Nos.1, 3 and

4 respectively, are ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 364A, 397, 120B of IPC, registered in respondent -

police station Crime No.142/2017, subject to the following conditions:

i. Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned

Court.

ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court regularly.