ABDUL RAZAK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this petition under Sec. 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) for enlarging him on bail in Arehalli Police Station Crime No.50/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 399, 402, 379 and 413 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) This is a successive bail petition filed by the petitioner and his earlier bail petition in Crl.P.No.12310/2022 is already rejected. It is the contention of the prosecution that on 18/6/2022 at 10.00 a.m., a raid was conducted by the complainant along with his staff, wherein they stopped a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-01-AB-1421 coming from Sakleshpur and proceeding towards Belur and on verification, the vehicle was found carrying iron rod, chopper, knife, chilli powder and other implements such as, cutter, battery, scanner screw driver, cutting player, hammer, wheel box etc. The accused Nos.1 to 3 were apprehended at the spot, while accused Nos.4 an 5 fled from the spot. The Investigating Officer has seized the vehicle with other articles and thereafter on interrogation, the accused Nos.1 to 3 revealed that at the instance of accused No.6 they have committed the offence. The petitioner who was arrayed as accused No.6 was apprehended and from his custody a Balero vehicle and cash of Rs.4.00 Lakhs was recovered. He was remanded to judicial custody. In the meanwhile, after completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet. The petitioner has approached this court initially, but his bail petition was rejected and later on, he again approached the learned Sessions Jude and same was rejected. Hence, he is before this court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the earlier bail petition was rejected on the ground that the petitioner hails from different State and hence, he is not fit to get the regular bail. He would contend that in similar circumstances, accused Nos.1 and 2 who are also hailing from neighbouring State were granted bail by this court and hence, he would contend that on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled for bail.