---THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS)BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.1931/2019 (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.145/2008) REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE J.J NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 394 OF IPC 1860, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, BY IMPOSING ANY CONDITIONS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THIS COURT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No.0145/2008 filed by the respondent – Police for the offences punishable under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC).

Factual matrix of the case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that the present petitioner was working as a salesman for the past one year at the Estel Fashion Jewellery Store which is situated at Bangalore Central near Mayo Hall. On 24.08.2008, the petitioner went to work in morning and worked till 10.30 p.m. After his work, he took a bus from Mayo Hall to the City Market to go to home. It was about 11.00 p.m. when the complainant had reached City Market. He took autorickshaw to go to Chikkabasti. During his journey towards Chikkabasti in the said autorickshaw, it is stated that some three persons had boarded the autorikshaw and they diverted the route.

3. It is further alleged that the complainant had been robbed by the accused and others. As per the complaint, the complainant had lost Rs.3,000/- and a mobile phone. A case has been registered against the unknown persons. During the investigation, the name of the present petitioner had been implicated in the charge- sheet along with other accused persons. The petitioner was on bail during the initial stage. However, he could not get the information regarding the committal order, hence, he remained absent.

4. After committal of the case, NBW and proclamation was issued against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had surrendered before the Court voluntarily. Now, he is in judicial custody since 20.11.2025.

5. Heard Sri. Muzaffar Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Anitha Girish N., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences, he has been falsely implicated in this case. No identification parade has taken place. Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner.

7. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein was not aware about the case which was committed to the Sessions Court. No summons was served. Therefore, he remained absent. After coming to know that proclamation was issued, he voluntarily surrendered before the Court. There are no antecedents against the petitioner. Hence, he may be enlarged and bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

8. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent vehemently submitted that the accused was absconding from the case. If, the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there may be chances of absconding and it is very difficult to secure his presence. Hence, it is appropriate to reject the bail petition. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent prays to reject the petition.

9. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the charge-sheet. The averments of the charge-sheet would indicate that the complainant had boarded the auto of accused No.1. He wanted to go to Chikkabasti. During the journey, it is stated that he has been robbed. Amount of Rs.3,000/-and his mobile were taken by the petitioner and others.

10. Be that as it may, the Investigating Officer has not conducted identification parade to identify the pe