MOHAMMED IRFAN Vs. STATE BY KALASIPALYA POLICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned SPP-II for respondent - State.

(2.) The application moved by the petitioners for their release on bail has been rejected by the LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.57) by order dated 02.03.2020 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1607/2020, mainly on the ground that the Investigation Officer is yet to record statements of witnesses and in the said circumstances, if the petitioners were released on bail, they might tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Learned Sessions Judge has further observed in his order that till completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet, the petitioners are not entitled for bail as claimed in the petition.

(3.) Since then investigation having been completed, petitioners have approached this court seeking for an order of bail, on the ground that they have been falsely implicated in the alleged offences on account of the political pressure. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, initially FIR was registered against unknown persons and at the time of arresting the petitioners and other accused persons, the police have not followed the procedure prescribed under section 54A for identification. The police have not conducted any identification parade. The charge sheet does not contain specific overt acts against any one of the petitioners/accused. The entire case is built up on the basis of political narrative wherein the head of the Police Department had gone on record, flashing the images of accused persons along with the petitioners before the media. The victim of the alleged offence is already discharged from the hospital and there is no threat to his life due to the injuries. Petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents and thus, petitioners seek for their release on bail, on such terms and conditions as found appropriate by this Court.