PRADEEPRAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (accused No.1) is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to proceedings in Crime No.211/2018 (C.C.No.1263/2019) for the offences punishable under Sections 397, 149 and 395 of IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the informant Rahul Gowda has given information stating that he was resident of Uttarahalli and on 30.05.2018 at about 10.30 p.m., he left house to meet his friends at JP Nagar. At about 1.30 a.m., when he has traveling near the Banashankari Circle, it is stated that unknown persons traveling in Honda Activa Vehicle had hit the vehicle of the informant. It is stated that the informant got down and he was asked to drop the injured person to the hospital and it is stated that the accused got into the car and assaulted him and robbed the gold chain, diamond earrings and mobile phone. Thereafter, it is stated that they forced the petitioner to drive around with them and at about 3.30 a.m., they proceeded towards Ashok Pillar and Banashankari Circle, the informant noticed the beat police, stopped the car and the accused is stated to be fled away. On the basis of the said information, a complaint was lodged, FIR has been registered and investigation carried out and it is stated that charge sheet has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the incident is said to have occurred between the late night of 30.05.2018 and early morning of 31.05.2018 but the complaint came to be registered only at 02:45 p.m. on 31.05.2018, the delay in filing the complaint itself creates a doubt as regards of the prosecution. He further contends that when the informant met the police at about 3.30 a.m., it is not satisfactorily explained regarding the delay in lodging the FIR. It is submitted that accused No.4 has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 26.09.2018 in Crl.Misc.No.7615/2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is stated that the petitioner is placed on the same footing as accused No.4, hence, he is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity and there is no criminal antecedents against the petitioner.