1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5752 OF 2020

BETWEEN

Sri. Waseem Hyder @ Wasim

S/o. Syed Inayath,

Aged about 26 years,

Residing at No.46/A, 5^th Cross,

2^nd Main, Bapujinagar,

Bengaluru-560026.

…Petitioner

(By Sri. K.V.Prakash, Advocate)

AND

State by Bharamasagara Police,

Chitradurga District,

Represented by Special Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Karnataka,

Bengaluru-560001.

…Respondent

(By Sri. B.J.Rohith, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in

Cr.No.327/2018

of

Bharamasagara

Police

Station,

Chitradurga District for the offence punishable under

Sections 395 and 342 of IPC.

2

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day

through video conferencing, the Court made the following :

ORDER

Accused No.4 is the petitioner. He sought bail under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in Crime No.327/2018 registered

by the respondent police for the offence punishable under

Section 395 of IPC.

2.

Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the learned

High Court Government Pleader.

3.

The argument of the petitioner’s counsel is that

in regard to incident i.e., decoity said to have been taken

place on 11.12.2018 the petitioner has been falsely

implicated. There is no recovery from the petitioner. Only

on the basis of the voluntary statement made by another

accused, the petitioner has been implicated. Though his

involvement is shown in various cases, in all those cases

he has been released on bail. There are no materials to

hold the involvement of this petitioner and therefore there

is a case for bail.

3

4.

Learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader

submits that there are too many cases against the

petitioner. Because the decoits were wearing face mask,

the eye witnesses could not identify the decoits. Further

there is recovery from accused No.1, who disclosed the

involvement of other accused including the petitioner.

Therefore there is no case for bail.

5.

Incident relates to decoity said to have taken

place in the early morning hours on 11.12.2018 in a petrol

bunk, namely, Lakshmi Agencies Petrol Bunk situated at

Sirigere Cross, Chitradurga Taluk. The first information

shows that some decoits came in a car bearing fake

number plate and snatched money that they were having

by sale of petrol and diesel. It is true that because the

decoits were wearing face masks, decoits could not be

identified. However accused No.1 who is involved in

another case pertaining to Srirangapatna Rural Police

Station, made disclosure of many decoities committed by

him and other accused including the petitioner on

4

11.12.2018. He also disclosed the name of this petitioner

therein. The Supreme Court in the case of Mehboob Ali

and another vs. State of Rajasthan (2016)14 SCC

640, has clearly held that disclosure made by one accused

with regard to involvement of another accused is

admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,

1872. It may be that there is no recovery from the

petitioner, but to the extent of involvement of the

petitioner, this kind of disclosure is sufficient at the stage

of deciding bail application to hold the view about

sufficiency of prima-facie materials. It is pertinent to

observe that while committing offences like theft, robbery

or decoity, the accused try to conceal their identity. These

types of offences are against society; people cannot live

peacefully.

5

6.

The petitioner might have been granted bail in

other cases, but it does not mean that bail is a freedom for

committing another crime. Therefore petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-