Karnataka High Court
Syed Tanvir @ Thannu vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 November, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7059 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Syed Tanvir @ Thannu
S/o Vajeeha, Aged 20 years,
R/at No.613, Kanakapura Main Road,
Near Krishnappa Tata, Kaggalipura,
1st Block, Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru-560 084.
2. Thabres Ahmed S/o Riyaz Ahmed,
Aged 22 years, R/at No.617,
A Block, Kaggalipura,
Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru-560 084.
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. Chandrahasa, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
By Hebbagodi Police Station,
Bengaluru Rural,
Represented by State Public
Prosecutor, High Court Building,
Bengaluru-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event
2
of their arrest in Crime No.15/2014 (C.C.No.380/2015) of
Hebbagodi P.S., Bengaluru District for the offence P/U/S
364(A), 384 of IPC.
This criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest, registered in Crime No.15/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 364(A) and 384 of IPC, in the respondent police station.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. As per the complainant's version, he went along with his vehicle to drop somebody at a particular 3 place and after dropping, he was coming back and in the mid night at 12.00 a.m., one person was moving along with his two wheeler vehicle in front of the vehicle of the complainant and as there was no space, he stopped his vehicle and that person told that he was tired and thirsty and asked for water. In the meanwhile, six other persons came and forcibly made the complainant to sit in the hind side of the said vehicle and they tied cloth to his eyes and snatched cash, mobile phone and other belongings. After taking him to many places, where they also robbed amount and articles from some other persons, they left the complainant at his place.
4. On the basis of said complaint, firstly, a case came to be registered against some unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the police have arrested accused Nos.1 and 2 on the basis of the 4 statement made by accused Nos.1 and 2, who took the names of these two petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 and also about commission of the alleged offences. These two petitioners are also arrayed as accused persons in the said case.
5. Heard arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned HCGP for the State. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also other materials on record.
6. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 07.01.2014 and the complaint came to be filed on 10.01.2014. There is a delay of three days in lodging the complaint. I have also perused the FIR, wherein there is an endorsement by the JMFC for receiving FIR on 13.01.2014 i.e., after delay of three days even after registering the complaint. At this stage, there is no 5 proper explanation by the prosecution about these delays. It is no doubt true that the crime is of the year 2013. But looking into the materials as against the present petitioners, the only basis is the statement of co-accused and in view of the said delay also, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, both petitioners can be admitted to anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release petitioners- accused Nos.4 and 5 on bail, in the event of their arrest in Crime No.380/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 364(A) and 384 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
a) Petitioners shall execute personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.6
b) Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
c) Petitioners shall make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
d) Petitioners shall to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bonds and the surety bonds.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bmc