YAMNURI NAIK Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner filed this petition under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth for brevity referred to as "Cr. P.C.") seeking his enlargement on anticipatory bail in Crime No. 209/2017 of the respondent-police station for the offences punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code (henceforth for brevity referred to as "IPC").

(2.) The summary of the prosecution case as could be gathered at this stage is that, accused No.1 was known to the complainant earlier and with the said acquaintance, accused No.1 induced the complainant and offered that in exchange of complainant giving the new currency notes of Rs. 8,00,000/-, he would give to the complainant the old currency notes of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Acting upon the said inducement, the complainant went to the place fixed by accused No.1 for exchange of notes, on 16.03.2017 at about 6.30 p.m., carrying with him a cash of Rs. 7,80,000/- in the form of new currency notes. Accused No.1, who met the complainant in the place, also brought four more other accused persons to the spot and all of them together robbed the said amount of Rs. 7,80,000/- brought by the complainant and also cell phone possessed by the complainant and left the place. It is stated that after completion of the investigation, the police have now filed charge sheet against 8 accused for the offence punishable under section 395 of IPC. The present petitioner is accused No.8.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that, except the present petitioner, all other accused including accused No.1 to 4 are already enlarged on bail. Admittedly, there is no whisper either about the presence or about the role of the present petitioner in the complaint. It is only based upon the alleged voluntary statement of the other accused, the present petitioner has been falsely roped in the case.