AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawad Rahim, J.—These three petitions are by accused in 201/2009 facing charge for the offences punishable u/s 397 of IPC. Petitioners in Cr.P. No. 1281/2010 are accused Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7; petitioners in Crl. P. No. 1333/2007 is accused No. 3 and petitioner in Crl. P. No. 1271/2010 is accused No. 6.
Petitioners in Cr.P. No. 1281/2010 are not yet arrested. Petitioner in Crl. P. No. 1271/2010 and petitioner in Crl. P. No. 1333/2010 are in judicial custody.
The prosecution case against them is based on the voluntary statement allegedly given by these persons white in custody during investigation in Cr. No. 361/2009 of Udayagiri Police Station.
The prosecution case is that petitioners on 17.8.2009 assaulted the driver of goods vehicle KA 11/7031 and looted Rs. 5,35,293/- in cash, two mobile sets and injured the driver. In this regard, complaint was submitted by one Niranjan in which he alleged that he is dealing in Sunpure cooking oil, which he had sold. Delivery of the oil was done through his goods vehicle KA 11/7031 and after collecting cash the driver and his agent were returning. At 1.00 P.M. on 17.8.2009 the vehicle stopped near the house of Shivananjaiah. While the driver was attempting to fill air in the tyre petitioners are alleged to have reached the spot and holding threat in knife robbed cash and two mobile sets and then they decamped with the loot soon after it, a Tata Sumo came to the spot. In this regard, investigation was taken up. But there was no breakthrough in the case till Cr. No. 365/2009 came to be registered. In that case, petitioners were arrested and allegedly made a disclosure statement about the alleged dacoity on 17.8.2009 registered in Cr. No. 201/2009.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that they have been falsely implicated because the case remained unearthed.
Learned SPP would submit that petitioners in Cr.P. No. 1281/2010 have not been arrested. Their interrogation is necessary to recover properties alleged to have robbed. They are also habitual offenders. As far as other petitioners are concerned, they are in judicial custody and are seeking bail.
The question is whether in the given set of circumstances, the material is enough to deny the order u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. petitioners in Cr.P. No. 1281/2010 and regular bail to petitioners in other petitions. Since the material against them is only their own voluntary statement, which is in the nature of confusion, I am of the view that they could be trusted with appropriate condition.
Crl. P. No. 1281/2010 is allowed and the petitioners are subject to the following conditions;
i) The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer-in-charge of the investigation in Cr. No. 201/2009 within two weeks from now. On their appearance, the Investigating Officer may arrest if need be, but shall release them if they execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety for the like sum.
ii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer and subject themselves to interrogation.
iii) The Investigating Officer is directed to detain them up to four hours on any day for the purpose of recovery.
iv) They shall continue to appear before the Investigating Officer/SHO of complainant Police Station once in 15 days on any Saturday between 7 A.M. and 7 P.M. till filing of the final report.
v) Within three weeks of their release in the manner aforesaid, they shall seek grant of regular bail before the trial Court, failing which the benefit of this order shall be revoked.
vi) They shall not tamper the prosecution witness or prevail upon any material witness by any means.
Crl. P.No. 1333/2010 and Crl. P. No. 1271/2010 are allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to the following conditions;
i) The petitioners shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate.
ii) They shall mark their attendance at the jurisdictional Police Station once in 15 days on any Saturday between 7 AM and 7 PM till filing of the final report.
iii) They shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.