JUDGMENT/ORDER

V Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri. T. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

2. Present petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

'WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant the Bail to the petitioner (A2) in Cr.No.25/2023 of Doddaballapura Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 397 of IPC pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Doddaballapura, on such terms and conditions, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice."

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

A complaint came to be lodged by Nithesh Srivathsav S/o. Nandakishor Srivathsav with Doddaballapura Rural Police Station, which was registered in Crime No.25/2023 on 23.01.2023 for the offences punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) against the petitioner and unknown persons for the first instance.

4. The gist of the complaint averments reveal that mobile telephone of the complainant has been robbed by few unknown persons.

5. During the course of investigation, police apprehended the present petitioner and also another accused and mobile telephone was recovered from the custody of the other accused person.

6. The attempt made by the present petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail is turned down by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District in Crl. Misc. No.10019/2023. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

7. Sri. T. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that the petitioner is a student and he was only present when the alleged incident took place in the company of other accused person and for the same reason, the petitioner has also been arraigned as an additional accused in the incident and sought for grant of bail.

8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader reiterating the written objections opposes for grant of bail.

9. In the light of the rival contentions, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously.

10. On such perusal it is seen that admittedly, the robbed mobile telephone is seized from the custody of the co-accused by the Investigating Agency.

11. In the absence any criminal antecedents of the petitioner, continuation of the accused petitioner in the judicial custody is no longer warranted nor it is a fit case where custodial trial is utmost necessary.

12. The apprehension of the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable and stringent conditions.

13. Accordingly, this Court passes the following:

ORDER

1. The Criminal Petition is allowed.

2. Petitioner-accused shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

3. Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

4. Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

5. Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences.

6. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District without prior permission.

Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail.

Ordered accordingly.