THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.136/2025 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED III J.M.F.C MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 309(4) OF BNS 2023 (IN CR.NO.107/2024) OF SARASWATHIPURAM POLICE, MYSURU CITY.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Narik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking bail in C.C.No.136/2025 pending trial before III JMFC, Mysuru arising out of Cr.No.107/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 309(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth referred to as 'BNS' for short).

2. The case of the prosecution was that on 14.10.2024 at about 07.30 a.m. when the complainant was walking, two persons on a motorbike came from behind. The complainant turned around and found that the pillion rider had got down and attempted to snatch the gold chain worn by her. She held on to the chain, as a result of which a portion of it was snatched by the pillion rider while the remaining portion stayed with her. She therefore lodged a complaint, pursuant to which a case in Cr.No.107/2024 was registered against unknown persons. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and another accused. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and registered C.C.No.136/2025 and issued process to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner being accused No.1 unsuccessfully filed an application for bail in Crl.Misc.No.448/2025 before the Trial Court which was rejected in terms of an order dated 09.04.2025. The petitioner is therefore filed this petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arraigned as accused No.1. He submits that the question whether accused No.1 is complicit in offence or not is yet to be tried and therefore the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner is involved in 41 cases of chain snatching and therefore it is not safe to release the petitioner on bail. He also contends that accused No.2 had disclosed the involvement of the petitioner and the portion of the chain snatched by accused No.1 was recovered at the instance of accused No.1. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail as there is a prima facie material against the petitioner.

6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

7. A perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court would show that there are 41 cases in which the petitioner is involved in similar offences. All these offences are stated to have taken place within the jurisdictions of Mysuru district, Ramanagar district and in Bengaluru. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, it is not safe to release the petitioner on bail. In addition, there is tangible material to show the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences and therefore, it is not appropriate to release the petitioner on bail.

8. Hence, the petition is dismissed.