SRI SRINIVASA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 394 and 397 of I.P.C. registered by the respondent-Police Station in Crime No. 138/2014. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused No. 1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

(2.) I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, F.I.R., complaint, order passed by the lower Court on the bail application and also the other materials produced in the case.

(3.) Looking to the allegation made in the complaint, case of the prosecution in brief that on 24-4-2014 at about 8.30 p.m., while complainant along with her husband and two daughters were returning from function and when they were about 2 kms. away from Urdigere, the petitioner along with other accused have waylaid them by blocking the auto rickshaw with two motorbikes and after assaulting the complainant and her husband with hands and knife, robbed them off a cell phone, cash and gold ornaments. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered against the unknown persons at the first instance for the alleged offence and during the course of investigation, the present petitioner has been arraigned as accused No. 1. Looking to the prosecution material, they go to show that at the first instance, Police, have arrested accused No. 4 and cell phone has been seized from accused No. 4. The material also goes to show on the basis of information furnished by accused No. 4, accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been arrested. It is also the case that accused No. 1 and 2 also gave the voluntary statement and on the basis of the voluntary statement, stolen articles have been seized. The learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that the present petitioner is a habitual offender. In this connection, I have perused the materials produced in this case so also the order passed by the lower Court, but the said contention is not supported by the materials that he has involved in other cases. It is no doubt true, as per the materials placed on record, there is recovery alleged to have been done on the voluntary statement of accused Nos. 1 and 2. But, only on the basis of recovery, it cannot be inferred that the prosecution placed a prima facie material about the involvement of the present petitioner in the case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the bail order granted by this Court in respect of accused No. 4.I have perused the order dated 9-7-2014 passed in Criminal Petition No. 3580/2014. While granting the bail, this Court has taken into consideration the entire merits of the case and allowed the petition and granted bail to accused No. 4.