NARASIMHA MURTHI S/O. K. MUNIRAJU AND SRI. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. MUNIYAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE REP., BY THE SHO, NANDAGUDI POLICE STATION HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT@RES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail in Crime No.145/2011 of Nandagudi Police Station, registered on 04.07.2011 for an offence under Section 395 IPC.

(2.) IT is the case of the complainant Sri R.V. Shridhar Kumar that in the intervening night of 3 and 04.07.2011 at about 12.05 hours (mid -night) when he was going on the Kolar - Bangalore Road, in his Swift Car bearing No.KA 61 Z 6209, one Tata Innova car came and stopped in front of his car and obstructed from going further. Immediately, another Tata Sumo came and 10 persons got down from the said vehicle and broke the hind glass of Swift Car. The persons thereafter, asked the complainant to get down from the car and also the inmate Sri Prakash. When they got down from the car, they were made to sit in the Tata Sumo vehicle and thereafter, they took them towards Hoskote and in the meantime, snatched Rs. 2,500/ -, Nokia Mobile and another Nokia Mobile, Titan watch and Rs. 6,000/ - from Prakash. They also assaulted them thereafter, near the Hoskote town in a tank bed, they were made to get down from the Tata Sumo and further snatched a cash of Rs. 2,200/ -, 70 grams of gold chain, rado watch and bracelets of 34 grams from the possession of the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the case came to be registered. The accused No.1 was secured under body warrant on 13.09.2011 and accused Nos.6 and 7 were arrested on 16.09.2011 and based on the statement of the petitioners, rado watch was seized from the possession of accused No.7 and Tata Sumo vehicle used in the commission of the offence was recovered at the instance of accused No.6. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 was not present at the scene of occurrence but he is the mastermind behind the case.

(3.) LEARNED Counsels for the petitioners submits that there is no test identification parade conducted in this case and that the involvement of the petitioners are not proved at this stage. Hence, they submit that the petitions may be allowed.'