Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sabir Khan @ Shabir S/O Musa vs State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2018
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100979 OF 2018
BETWEEN
1. SRI. SABIR KHAN @ SHABIR
S/O MUSA
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: NO.12, WARD NO.3, CILLI,
CHHAINSA (211) PALWAL,
HARIYANA-121103.
2. SRI.SHARIF
S/O RAHMAN BANARS (36)
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: METWAT,
HARIYANA-122108.
3. SRI.RAFIQUE S/O BASIR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: H.NO.106, BLOCK NO.1,
BILLGULATA PUNHANA,
DIST: METWAT,
HARIYANA-122108.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ANAND R.KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
:2:
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
(THROUGH GHATAPRABHA PS,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS
ON REGULAR BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME
NO.364/17 REGISTERED BY GHATAPRABHA POLICE
STATION, DIST: BELAGAVI FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
457, 380 IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Ghataprabha P.S. in Crime No.364/2017 for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Since from the date of their arrest, the petitioners are in judicial custody. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners is praying for enlargement of the petitioners on regular bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and so also learned H.C.G.P. for the State. :3:
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 21.12.2017 that one Umesh Bapusu Sutar, who filed a complaint before the respondent-police stated that against the unknown persons alleging that he was working as a Field Officer with AGS Technology Ltd. It is further alleged that on behalf of company, they had set up ATM machine pertaining to AXIS bank and one company by name Secure Volume India Ltd. used to deposit the amount to the said machine. On 18.12.2017, the staff of Secure India Volume Ltd. By name Udaykumar Hulikund and Pramod Patil have deposited a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- to the ATM machine and thereby a total sum of Rs.7,29,000/- was in the machine. On 21.12.2017, at 8.00 a.m., from the village of Kallolli, one Suresh Tahasildar had called the complainant and informed that cash in the ATM machine has been stolen. Thereafter, the complainant went to Kallolli and verified that ATM machine has been broke down by a gas cutter and cash boxes have been stolen. Upon enquiring the said Suresh Tahasildar he told that on 20.12.2017 at 10.00 pm, he closed the ATM shutters and slept. On the next day i.e., 21.12.2017 at 6.30 a.m. when he woke up he :4: observed that AXIS ATM shutters was open and machine was broke down and cash has been stolen. Thereafter, complainant informed about the incident to his Company and enquired about as to how much cash has been stolen, it came to know that Rs.4,06,300/- has been stolen. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered against the unknown persons. Based on the complaint, police have registered a case in Crime No.364/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 457 & 380 of IPC against unknown persons. The Investigating Officer took up the investigation and after recording the statements of witnesses, laid the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences stated supra.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly, the complaint is lodged against unknown persons. He further submits that the police have arrested the persons who have committed the offences whereas these petitioners have been arrested only on suspicion. Moreover, during the course of investigation, nothing has been recovered. The petitioners are ready to abide by any :5: conditions imposed by the Court. On all these grounds, he prays for grant of bail.
5. Per contra, learned H.C.G.P. strenuously opposes the petition and contends that petitioners were arrested in Crime No.12/2018 of Gadag Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 of IPC. He further contends that the petitioners are habitual offenders. They have given voluntary statements admitting their guilt in the aforesaid case and also commission of several other offences. These petitioners are from Haryana State and if they are enlarged on bail, they may abscond and again commit similar offences. Hence, he prays for dismissal of petition.
6. Having regard to the contentions, it is relevant to state that based on a complaint lodged by Field Officer of AGS Transact Technologies Ltd., stating that the cash in AIX ATM has been stolen by unknown persons. Based on the complaint, a case came to be registered before Ghataprabha Police Crime No.364/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 457 & 380 of IPC. The :6: Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and arrested these petitioners along with other accused. After recording the statements of witnesses, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Learned H.C.G.P. has filed objections opposing the petition. It is stated that there are criminal antecedents against the petitioners. They are the residents of Haryana District. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there will be an adverse impact in the society and similar modus operandi used to commit offices. Whereas petitioners-accused are also involved in Old-Hubli Police Station Crime No.208/2016, Mundagod Police Station Crime No.245/2017, Ghataprabha Police Station Crime Nos.364/2017, 365/2017 & 366/2017, Kushtagi Police Station Crime No.328/2017 and in Crime No.26/2018 of Khurar, Mumbai, State of Maharashtra. The offences committed in these cases found to be similar in nature. Therefore, there are no substances in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners for seeking relief of bail.
:7:
7. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners do not deserve for bail. Consequently, the bail petition filed by the petitioners under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
8. Keeping in view the fact that the accused are in judicial custody since from their arrest, the Court below shall expedite the trial in accordance with law.
SD/-
JUDGE Clk/Naa