The learned High Court Government Pleader has filed

objections. The same is taken on record.

2.

The petitioner has filed this petition under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge him on bail in

Crime No.77/2023 of Sub-Urban Police Station, for the

offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC').

3.

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

The case of the prosecution is that on 13.03.2023

Sadik has filed written complaint against the accused Anil

Pujari and others and on the basis of the said complaint,

the police have registered the case in Crime No.77/2023

for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. It is

alleged that the complainant is having a house in Bijapur

- 3 -

and gave the said house to accused No.1 Anil Pujari and

Anil Pujari and his wife were residing in the said house on

rent basis and they used to pay rent of Rs.5,000/-. They

have paid Rs.5,000/- as advance while taking house on

rent and thereafter, accused No.1 did not pay rent. The

wife of the accused No.1 alone was residing in the house.

Therefore, the complainant removed them from the house.

Thereafter, the accused No.1 and his wife were started

residing at Kalaburagi. Due to the above said reason,

accused

No.1

developed

animosity

against

the

complainant. The complainant came to know one girl by

name Pallavi in instagram and he used to chat with her.

On 02.03.2023, the complainant has purchased a new

pulsar NS 200 motorcycle and on 12.03.2023 he and one

Sameer S/o Noor Ahmed Laskari together had been to

Bandenawaz Darga, Kalaburago from Bijapur for pooja of

motorcycle, at that time, an auto rickshaw and motorcycle

came there and in the said auto, accused No.1 and 5-6

persons were there, they took the key of his motorcycle,

threatened the complainant by showing knife, chopper and

- 4 -

iron rod. On seeing the public, they put chopper to their

neck, took them in the said auto towards Aland road,

abused him in filthy language and assaulted him. Hence,

he lodged the complaint against the petitioner. The police

have registered a case in Crime No.77/2023 for the

offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

also

learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader

for

respondent/State.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that there was delay in lodging the FIR against the

petitioner and others. Further there are no allegations

against this petitioner in regard to overt-act. The entire

allegation is against accused No.1. He further submits

that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the

criminal case and there is no motive for the petitioner to

commit the alleged offence. He further submits that the

petitioner is in judicial custody since 14.03.2023. Hence,

on these grounds, he prays to allow the petition.

- 5 -

6.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader opposed the submissions of the learned counsel

for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has

involved in heinous offence. If the petitioner is enlarged on

bail, there is chances of tempering the prosecution

witnesses. The police have not filed charge sheet. The

presence of the petitioner is required for investigation.

Hence, on these grounds, he prays to reject the petition.

7.

Heard and perused the records and considered

the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective

parties.

8.

From perusal of the FIR, there is no specific

allegation against the petitioner and the entire allegation is

against accused No.1. From perusal of the records, it is

clear that the complaint is filed after 24 hours of incident.

Thus, there is delay in lodging complaint. Having

considered the gravity of offence, allegation made against

the petitioner and lodging the complaint at a belated

- 6 -

stage, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to

exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The

said case is under investigation