GIRIDHAR N. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner- complainant under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the bail granted by 69th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, by order dated 20.6.2019 in Crl.Misc.No.4503/2019.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel Sri.Ramesh Chandra for the petitioner-complainant virtually and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.Mahesh Shetty for respondent No.1.

(3.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 has approached the trial Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 395 , 427 , 448 r/w Section 149 of IPC in Crime No.76/2019. The trial Court has granted anticipatory bail. It is his further submission that the accused persons have burgled the house of the complainant and the movable properties have been taken away by the accused No.2 along with other co-accused persons. It is his further submission that in the suit O.S.No.6427/2014 it has been observed that respondent No.2 is not in possession of the said property and is nothing to do with said property. Even then respondent No.2 who is the main accused has trespassed into the house of the petitioner and has taken away all the properties. It is his further submission that no progress has been made by the Investigating Officer for having released respondent No.2-accused on bail. It is his further submission that custodial interrogation of respondent No.2 is very much necessary and in that light he requested to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2. In that light he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrakant Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3665. It is his further submission that the belongings of the petitioner have not been traced so far. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 by the trial Court.