This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to

enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.85/2022 registered

by Bailhongal Police Station, now pending in SC No.197/2022

on the file of the Court of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Belagavi at Belagavi.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned

HCGP for respondent-State and perused the material on record.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that, the first informant is

a resident of Attapadi in Sangli District, State-Maharastra. He is

a jeweler by profession having Laxmi Gold Jewellary shop in

Kolahapur as well as in Talaseri, State-Kerala.

4.

On 07.04.2022, when the first informant was in

Talaseri, Kerala-State, he telephoned his manager working in

Kolahapur and asked him to send cash. Accordingly, total sum

of Rs.4,97,30,000/- was loaded in a Bolero Pickup goods

vehicle bearing registration No.KA-22/D-2333 on 08.04.2022 at

about 7.40 a.m. and the driver CW-16-Sachin Banudasa and

cleaner CW.15-Mahadev Ramachandra Banasode left Kolahapur

- 3 -

to proceed towards Kerala through Belagavi-Hirebagewadi.

When the vehicle was proceeding on Gaddikaravinakoppa -

M.K.Hubballi road, accused Nos.1, 3 to 6, who had hatched a

conspiracy with accused No.2 who was working under the

complainant, in order to commit dacoity, followed the said

vehicle in their Ertiga vehicle bearing No.MH-14/EP-0297, fixing

a fake number plate to the said vehicle i.e registration No.KA-

28/P-6432, and intercepted the said vehicle. Further, by

pointing a pistol at them and threatening the driver and cleaner

of the vehicle, took the said vehicle towards a land in Sy.

No.127/3 in Maradi Nagalapura and then took away total cash

of Rs.4,68,00,000/- which was in 5 gunny bags. They also

snatched their mobile phones as well as the key of the vehicle

and then fled away with the cash.

5.

It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner

that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely

implicated in this case. He contends that though the alleged

incident has taken place on 08.04.2022 and the first informant

has came to know about the alleged incident on the same day,

but the complaint has been lodged after an inordinate delay of

two days, i.e., after discussing the matter with his family

- 4 -

members. He contends that according to prosecution accused

No.2 who was working as servant under the first informant is

the main conspirator and a huge amount of Rs.1,91,00,000/-

has been recovered from him and he has been enlarged on bail.

Further

contends

that

the

first

informant

has

given

contradictory statements so as CWs.16 and 17, wherein they

have made several improvements and therefore submits that

the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the case. He

would also contend that according to the statement of CWs.16

and 17 initially the accused persons attempted to commit

dacoity, but CWs.16 and 17 have not informed the police on

the other hand they have proceeded in the same vehicle which

also throw a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. He

contends that if such a huge amount was robbed, then there

would not have been any delay in lodging the complaint and in

view of the delay of two days in lodging the complaint, the

entire case of the prosecution appears to be doubtful. He

therefore submits that the petitioner, who is arrested on

10.05.2022, may be enlarged on bail by imposing any

conditions.

- 5 -

6.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader has opposed the prayer seeking bail by the petitioner,

contending that petitioner was one of the person who

participated in the dacoity and he has been identified in the test

identification parade, by both CWs.16 and 17 namely the driver

and cleaner of the vehicle. She contends that a sum of

Rs.53,00,000/- has been recovered from the petitioner and in

view of the nature of allegations, the petitioner is not entitled

for bail. Further, contends if the petitioner is enlarged on bail

then he may tamper with the prosecution wit