VASUDEV Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail for the offence punishable under Sections 342 , 365 and 395 of IPC in respect of Crime No.224/2018.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.7. It is alleged in the complaint that when the complainant was driving the truck bearing registration No.KA-28-B-7788 loaded with 173 quintal maize towards Jamakhandi through Mundagnur near Chingundi at about 9.00 p.m., at that time, some persons came in a Cruiser and Innova from behind and asked the complainant the way to go to Jamakhandi. Then they drove the vehicle little forward, caused obstruction, stopped his vehicle and got inside the vehicle and assaulted him. They closed his eyes by tying him with cloth, abducted him in their vehicle and the other person drove the vehicle belonging to the complainant. Thereafter, they snatched the money and mobile of the complainant and he was confined in a room and took the lorry loaded with maize. In all, committed robbery worth of Rs.5,63,000/-.

(3.) The allegation made in the complaint is against unknown persons and when accused No.1 was arrested, he revealed the involvement of the other persons, who indulged in the crime. Based on the complaint, the police investigated the matter, registered the case and recoveries were made. The main grounds urged in this petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been in custody for the last one year three months. The other accused persons have been enlarged on bail. He would also contend that though there are 19 cases registered against this petitioner, the offence invoked in this case is under Section 395 of IPC and no other case is registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. The other offence invoked against him are under Sections 406 , 420 , 465 , 468 , 482 read with Section 34 of IPC. The police have registered false case against him and hence he cannot be termed as habitual offender. He would also contend that this petitioner also stands in the same footing as that of the other accused, who are enlarged on bail.