1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MAY 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1986 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

SRI.K.R.RAGHU,

S/O RAJANNA,

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

R/AT KITTANA HALLI

VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI,

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,

BANGALORE – 562130.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI N SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

MADANAYAKANAHALLY POLICE,

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BENGALURU – 560001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI I.S.PROMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION

439 OF CR.P.C.PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER

ON

BAIL

IN

CR.NO.30/2019

REGISTERED

BY

MADANAYAKAHALLY POLICE STATION, BENGALURU

DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER

SECTION 397 OF IPC.

2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR

ORDERS

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

MADE

THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail.

2.

Petitioner is said to be an accused in Crime

No.30/2019 registered for the offence punishable under

Section 397 of IPC, later the charge sheet came to be filed

against the petitioner and others for the offence

punishable under Section 395 of IPC.

3.

The allegation made in the complaint that on

30.12.2018 at about 9.00p.m., when the complainant

and his four friends were proceeding on motorcycle near

Jinnagaramma temple, the petitioner and other accused

persons came from backside and stopped the vehicle and

by throwing chilly powder on their eyes, they robbed

cash, two gold rings, mobile phone, etc. and after

assaulting them, the accused persons ran away.

Subsequently, case has been registered on 21.01.2019

3

and later accused persons said to be arrested and

remanded to judicial custody and on the voluntary

statement of other accused, this petitioner is also

implicated in the case. Thereafter, the petitioner has

surrendered before Police on 15.02.2019, since then he is

in custody.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence.

There is inordinate delay of 22 days in lodging the

complaint. The name of the petitioner is not revealed in

the FIR and there is no test identification parade

conducted in the case. There is no recovery except some

cash from this petitioner, there is no deadly weapon

recovered from this accused. It is also contended that

accused No.2 has already been granted bail by the

Sessions Court. Hence, prays for allowing this petition.

5.

Per contra, learned SPP-II objected the bail

petition on the ground that it is a heinous offence,

however, admitted that charge sheet is filed by the Police.

4

6.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the

case, there is a delay of 22 days in lodging the complaint

and there is no wound certificate secured by the I.O. in

order to show that the complainant sustained any injury.

Initially, though the case is registered for the offence

under Section 397 of IPC, but subsequently, Police filed

charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section

395 of IPC. Except securing Rs.2,300/- from this

petitioner, there is no deadly weapons recovered from the

petitioner. The similar allegations are made against the

other accused, who are already granted bail by the

Sessions Court for default bail under Section 167(2) of

Cr.P.C.

7.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the

case, petitioner is no more required for investigation.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits

of the case, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed.

The petitioner-accused No.3 is ordered to be

released

on

bail,

in

Crime

No.30/2019

of

5

Madanayakanahally Police Station for the offences

punishable under Section 395 of IPC, subj