HULGEVAA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners, who have been arraigned as accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No. 121/2012 of Badami Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 395 of I.P.C., have sought for an order to enlarge them on bail, inter alia contending that they are innocent persons and have not committed the offences alleged and that they have been falsely implicated in the case and all of them are women and being permanent residents of Solapur in Maharashtra State, have deep-rooted in the society. It is also their contention that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed act of dacoity and ever, the allegation in the complaint does not attract the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C. The petition is opposed by the respondent/State.

(2.) I have heard both sides.

(3.) According to the case of the prosecution, on 13.08.2012, the complainant-Madhumalati, wife of Basanagoudar Chenagoudar resident of B.N. Jalihal, Badami, had been to Basaveshwara Temple in Pattadakal and since there was heavy rush to go to sanctum sanctorum of the temple, she was standing in the midst of a group of people and there were ladies both ahead and behind her and at that time, the ladies behind her tried to push her and one of them snatched her gold Mangalya chain and on seeing this, she shouted, however, those ladies left the place immediately and about an hour later, she was informed that the five ladies, namely the petitioners herein, have been brought to Panchayath office while they were proceeding in an auto rickshaw. Immediately, she went there and identified them and out of them, the 1st petitioner produced the gold chain stolen from the complainant. Immediately, the police were summoned and thereafter, all the petitioners along with stolen gold chain were taken to the police station, where the complainant lodged a, report, based on which case came to be registered for offence punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C. and the investigation was taken upto.