BARKATALI MAJEEDSAB Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been arraigned as Accused No. 3 in S.C. No. 58/2012 pending before the Fast Track Court, Ranebennur. He along with other accused persons have been accused of committing offence punishable under Section 394 of the I.P.C. According to the case of the prosecution, at about 6.00 p.m. on 17.01.2011 the complainant viz., Shivu Son of Irappa Hubbali, as driver of lorry bearing registration No. KA 16/A-5540, left Bheema samudra in the said lorry, loaded with manganese ore and while he was proceeding in the lorry towards Kolhapur along with cleaner viz., Thimmaraju (C.W.8), in the early hours of 18.01.2011 near Magod bridge on N.H.4, four persons on two motor-cycles came from behind, overtook the lorry and stopped the motor-cycles in front of the lorry. As a result, he also stopped the lorry and thereafter, those four persons came near the lorry, threatened the driver as well as the cleaner by showing knife and other weapons, demanded the driver to give money; thereafter one of them assaulted the driver, snatched cash of Rs. 2,800/- from his pocket and also a mobile handset and went away from that place. In respect of this incident, said Shivu lodged a report before the Halageri Police at about 3.00 a.m. on 18.01.2011, based on which, case in Crime No. 17/2011 came to be registered and investigation was taken up. In the said report, the complainant had stated in categorical terms that the assailants had covered their faces with black cloths, as such, he was not in a position to identify any of them.

(2.) According to the prosecution, this petitioner was apprehended on 30.01.2011 by Harappanahalli Police in connection with the case in Crime No. 8/2011 of that police Station and during interrogation, he made voluntary statement disclosing his complicity in the commission of offence involved in this case and pursuant to his voluntary statement, the investigating officer recovered a sum of Rs. 700/- from the petitioner and thereafter, he was subjected to judicial custody. On coming to know of the involvement of this petitioner in this case, the investigating officer in Crime No. 17/2011 secured the presence of this petitioner by obtaining body warrant and thereafter, he was subjected to judicial custody in this case also. His application filed before the Sessions Judge for bail came to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition seeking bail.

(3.) The petition is opposed by the respondent/State.