RADHIKA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the petition filed by the petitioners - accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent - police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 420 of IPC registered by the respondent - police in Crime No. 19/2014.

(2.) LOOKING to the allegations made m the complaint it is alleged that when the said Rangaswamy was going to Mysore on his business, as there was no security in his house, he kept some money in the house of one Nagendra, who is none other than the cousin brother of the complainant - Rangaswamy. On returning from Mysore, he went to the house of Nagendra to take back the money kept by him. But the Nagendra told him that it has been stolen by somebody. The said Rangaswamy went to the Rajagopal Nagar Police Station and lodged a complaint, even though his wife, his mother -in -law and his brothers -in -law forced him not to lodge the complaint with the police for the loss of money. It is further alleged in his complaint that in return to the complaint lodged by him, his wife, his mother -in -law and his brother -in -law lodged the complaint with the very said police for the alleged offences under Sections 498A and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that his wife, his mother -in -law has stolen a cash of Rs. 15 lakhs, S.B.I.'s cheque book, two cheque books of Chamarajnagar Co -operative Bank and one cheque book issued by Axis Bank. It is further alleged that the petitioners have stolen two silver plates, two silver glasses, site documents and 125 grams of gold. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered for the alleged offences against the petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners during the course of his argument submitted that though it is alleged that the said incident has taken place on the alleged date, but the complaint has been lodged after lapse of 2 1/2 months. Learned counsel made the submission that there is no proper or satisfactory explanation about the said delay and why the complaint was not lodged at the earliest point of time, even if really the alleged offences were committed. Learned counsel further made the submission that accused No 3 who is the police constable he was on duty at some other place and even then false implication has been made by making false allegations in the complaint that he was also involved in the commission of the alleged offences. Hence, learned counsel made the submission that even looking to the materials placed on record, it goes to show that accused No. 3 was at some other place. Hence, there is a false implication. Counsel made the submission that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be enlarged on bail.