Karnataka High Court
Sri Abdul Wahid vs State Of Karnataka on 31 March, 2021
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7827 OF 2020
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7910 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI ABDUL WAHID
S/O. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VENKATESHPURA GAS BUNKI,
ANWAR LAYOUT,
NEAR ROUND TABLE SCHOOL,
TANNERY ROAD, D.J. HALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 045.
... PETITIONER (COMMON)
(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SHO, ELECTRONIC CITY P.S.,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 100.
REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT (COMMON)
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, H.C.G.P.)
***
2
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NOS.98 OF 2020 AND 99 OF 2020 RESPECTIVELY
REGISTERED BY ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 392 AND 397 OF THE IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Criminal Petition No.7827 of 2020 and Criminal Petition No.7910 of 2020 are filed by accused No.2 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') for granting regular bail in Crime No.98 of 2020 and 99 of 2020 respectively registered by Electronic City Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC').
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3
3. The case of the prosecution in Criminal Petition No.7827 of 2020 is that, on 30-6-2020, Sri Ebaraj filed a complaint before the respondent-Police alleging that some unknown persons threatened him and snatched his mobile phone and ran away with their black colour Pulsar bike, bearing Registration No.KA-04 TY-3645.
4. The case of the prosecution in Criminal Petition No.7910 of 2020, Sri Nithin Dagadu Bhande filed a complaint before the respondent-Police alleging that when he was returning to his house, after working, three unknown persons came in black Pulsar bike and snatched his mobile phone.
5. Initially, the cases were registered for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC and later, charge-sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 397 of the IPC. The further case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner was arrested by Electronic City Police in Crime No.101 of 2020 on 4 2-7-2020 and seized a car, mobile phones and weapons, and he was released on bail. During investigation, it is revealed that the petitioner was involved in the commission of the offence registered by the respondent- Police in Crime Nos.98 and 99 of 2020. It is further case of the petitioner that, the Police obtained body warrant of the petitioner in Crime Nos.98 and 99 of 2020 and remanded him to judicial custody. Since October-2020, the petitioner is in custody. The petitioner approached the trial Court and Sessions Court for granting bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, these petitions.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that, the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged and he has been falsely implicated. Crime Nos.98 and 99 of 2020 have been registered on the same day and the Police secured the presence of the petitioner by obtaining body warrant. The petitioner was arrested in Crime No.101 of 2020 and was granted bail by the trial Court. Absolutely, 5 the petitioner has not committed any offence in these two cases. The petitioner is ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petitions.
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the bail petitions and contended that, the petitioner is involved in almost twelve cases and all the cases are with regard to robbery, i.e. snatching mobile phones and cash. Apart from mobile phones and weapons, the motorbike which was used by the petitioner for committing the offence is also seized. If the petitioner is granted bail, he may commit similar offences. Co- accused are still absconding. Hence, she prayed for dismissing the petitions.
8. Upon considering the arguments and perusal of the record, initially, the cases were registered against unknown persons in Crime Nos.98 and 99 of 2020. In both the complaints, the complainants have stated that 6 their mobile phones were snatched by unknown persons. Sri Ebaraj, complainant in Crime No.98 of 2020, has clearly stated that the accused persons snatched his mobile phone and ran away in black colour Pulsar bike, bearing Registration No.KA-04 TY-3645. The petitioner was arrested in Crime No.101 of 2020 and on the voluntary statement of the petitioner, the Police have seized 2 longs, 26 mobile phones, two small packets of ganja and a car in P.F. No.59 of 2020. It is also revealed that black colour Pulsar bike, used by the accused persons, has also been seized in P.F. No.57 of 2020. The petitioner was granted bail by the trial Court. Since the case was registered against unknown persons, the petitioner was taken into custody by obtaining body warrant. On perusal of the entire record, it goes to show that the petitioner is a habitual offender; he is involved in twelve cases of robbery. In the voluntary statement of the petitioner, it is further revealed that he is arrested by the Police along with other accused persons for robbing cash 7 of Rs.400/- near D.J. Halli and a case was registered against them and was sent to jail and later, in January- 2020, he was released on bail. After coming out of the jail, the petitioner is involved in committing robbery in various parts of the city. There is sufficient material to show the involvement of the petitioner in robbery cases. The petitioner is wanted in almost twelve cases. The motorbike, car, mobile phones and weapons, which are subject matter, are seized by the Police. By looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every possibility of he committing similar offences is not ruled out. Further, the co-accused persons are yet to be arrested. Even though, the charge- sheet is filed, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, the criminal petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kvk