Uttappa T.A @ Sabu & Anr vs The State of Karnataka

Since these two petitions are in respect of same crime number 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 in order to avoid repetition of factual and legal aspects.

The petition in Crl.P.No.496/2018 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 and another petition in Crl.P.No.497/2018 is fled by the

petitioner/accused No.4. Both petitions are filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release

the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC. After completion

of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B), 341, 342, 323, 363 and 395 r/w

34 of IPC registered in Respondent-police station in Crime No.159/2017.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 4 and also the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the Respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 4 has made submission that so far as these two petitioners are concerned there is no

prima-facie case made out by the prosecution. It is also submitted that accused No.6 has approached this Court seeking his release on bail and

this Court allowed the bail petition of accused No.6 and granted anticipatory bail to him vide order dated 31.01.2018 passed in

Crl.P.No.130/2018. He has also submitted that other accused persons were also granted bail by the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Learned

counsel also submitted that the money has been returned to the said Bank and it is intact. Hence, he submitted that now, the investigation has been

completed and charge sheet is also filed and by imposing reasonable conditions the petitioners may be admitted to anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that during the investigation, the petitioner/accused No.1 remained absent. He

was not available to the I.O. for interrogation and so far as accused No.4 is concerned, he submitted that his name is not at all mentioned in the

FIR at the first instance. He is also one of the person, who went in the said vehicle with others accused persons. Hence, he submitted that

petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in these bail petitions, FIR, complaint, charge sheet and other materials placed on record and so also, the bail

order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail petition of both petitioners.

The allegations of the prosecution is that SIS PROSEGUR HOLDINGS company is distributing cash to different banks and ATMs and also to

Axis Bank, Bengaluru every month. On 11.05.2017, a sum of Rs.7.5 crores was taken in a Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA.06-C-8389 by the

company staffs by name Driver Karibasava, custodian Parashuram and gunmans Poovanna and Basappa to Axis Bank, Koramangala Branch.

During that process it is noticed that all the 4 persons went along with vehicle and taken away a sum of Rs.7.5 crores. During the investigation, the

petitioner/accused No.1 remained absent and he was not available to the I.O. for interrogation. So far as accused No.4-Basappa in the connected

petition is concerned, there is specific allegations in the complaint that he went in the said vehicle along with 3 others and all the 4 persons taken

away the vehicle and cash of Rs.7.5 crores. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record and in view of serious offence alleged against the

petitioners, I am of the opinion it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, these petitions are hereby rejected.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at this stage made submission that both petitioners/ accused Nos.1 and 4 prepared to surrender

before the concerned trial Court. In case, if the petitioners surrender before the concerned trial Court and filed application under Section 437 of

Cr.PC seeking their release on bail, the concerned trial Court has to take up the mater and consider the said applications on merits and dispose of

in accordance with law, if possible on the same day.