NOWSHAD M.R. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.4/2020 registered with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 365 , 323 , 384 , 419 , 342 , 149 of IPC.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant who was working as a lorry driver in a quarry had received a phone call from accused No.2 stating that if the complainant needed workers he has to visit Kasaragodu and subsequently, numerous phone calls were made guiding the complainant and his accomplices and accordingly, they traveled to Kasaragodu. It is further submitted that accused No.2 boarded the vehicle at 12.00 a.m. and later took them to a house wherein the accused is stated to have assaulted the complainant and three others. It is further stated that the petitioner who is stated to have impersonated as police official along with other accused had made demands for payment of money after having taken photographs while threatening the complainant and his accomplices that they would be exposed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very version in the complaint itself sounds like an incredible story. It is further submitted that the punishments prescribed for the offences under Sections 323 , 384 , 419 , 342 , 149 of IPC is only up to three years. However, as regards the offence under Section 365 , the basic ingredient of forcibly taking away the person against his will is absent as is revealed in the version of the complaint. Hence, it is submitted that looking into the punishments prescribed and also noting that the offences are triable by the Magistrate, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that accused No.5 has already been enlarged on bail and the custodial interrogation of accused No.5 is complete as is noted in the order enlarging the accused No.5 on bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a person of standing in the Society and would co- operate with the investigation and in light of the investigation already conducted as regards the other accused who were in custody, there is no ground as of now for custodial interrogation of the petitioner.