ABDUL AARIS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for regular bail in connection with Crime No.8/2020 of Jayapura Police Station pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court, Koppa, Chikkamagaluru District for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 506 IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 06.03.2020 at about 10.30 PM, when the complainant and his wife were residing in their house, a group of about 15-20 persons trespassed into their house with deadly weapons like swords and clubs and stated to have committed dacoity by stealing gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.9,40,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- in cash. Accused were stated to have tied hands of the complainant and complainant's wife was compelled to stay in a room. The accused were also stated to have threatened the complainant stating that if they revealed the matter to the police, they would be killed. Arising out of the aforesaid incident, petitioner was arrested on 24.03.2020 on the score that petitioner was also involved in the aforesaid crime. Such prima facie conclusion has been arrived with reference to mobile call details and seizure of mobile whereby the investigating authorities were stated to have formed an opinion that petitioner had contact with other accused whereby presumption has been drawn that the petitioner is also involved in the crime. Petitioner filed a C.Crl. Misc.No.1/2020 before the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and it was dismissed on 25.04.2020. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner is a qualified Computer Diploma Holder and he is doing private contract. The prosecution case is that petitioner's involvement is only with reference to mobile call details and its seizure. Merely because petitioner had the mobile contact number of the co-accused and if there are any calls were made during the alleged offence period, on that score petitioner shall not be detained in custody. The aforesaid issue has not been appreciated by the trial Court while deciding C.Crl.Misc.No.1/2020.