VIJAY @ NAYIPALA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offence punishable under

Section 397 r/w 34 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.244/2016.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

Brief facts of prosecution case that the complainant had collected the amount of Rs.30,000/- on 20.10.2016 in J.J.Nagar area and Rs.50,000/-

of his own personal amount, which he had kept to sent to his native. He had kept the entire amount in one bag. Around 3.00 p.m. when he was

traveling in his motor cycle at Vijayanagar, Pipe line Road, Tolgate towards, Vidyaranyanagar, 7th Cross, Near Giraffe park, two unknown

persons came behind the complainant in a motor bike and they dashed to his vehicle. He lost his balance and became panic. Thereafter, out of the

two unknown persons who had come behind the complainant, one among them got down from the bike and came towards the complainant asked

to show his bag and give him the bag. When the complainant refused, he took out a knife, threatened him and he cut the said bag and ran away

near his bike and thereafter he fled away from the said place. On the basis of the said complaint, firstly a case came to be registered against

unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the present petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 made a submission that looking to the materials placed by the prosecution, there is no prima

facie case to show the involvement of the petitioner in committing the offence under Section 397 r/w 34 of IPC. He further submitted that no

deadly like weapons are used as against the complainant. He also submitted that bike, which is said to have been used by the said unknown

persons is a ''Discovery bike'', whereas during investigation, it is noticed that it is ''Pulsar'' vehicle. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner/accused No.1 may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader made a submission that looking to the complaint averments, the complainant has given

the facial feature of bag containing Rs.80,000/-. The incident has taken place in the bright day light. He has also made a submission that present

petitioner is involved in many other criminal cases like attempt to murder, robbery, dacoity, etc. He further made a submission that in this case, he

was secured under the body warrant, hence he submitted that since there are criminal antecedents of the present petitioner, he is not entitled to be

granted with bail.

Looking to the prosecution material, so also the submission made by the High Court Government Pleader with regard to the involvement of the

petitioner in other criminal cases, wherein the offences alleged are serious in nature and as he was secured under the body warrant, even in this

case also there is prima facie material to show the criminal antecedents as against the petitioner, therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is

not entitled to grant bail. Accordingly, petition is rejected.