Karnataka High Court
Muthasim C M @ Thaslim @ Don Thaslim vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 831
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8543 OF 2019
Between:
Muthasim C.M @ Thaslim
@ Don Thaslim
S/o Late P.A.Moidu,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.13/403, Chembarika House,
Chandragika House,
Chandragiri Post,
Illapu Valappu,
Kalnad Village,
Chembarika,
Chimnad,
Kasargod, Kerala - 671 317.
... Petitioner
(By Sri.M.T.Nanaiah, Senior Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka by
Mangaluru North Police Station,
Mangaluru.
Rep by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
...Respondent
(By Smt.Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP)
-2-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.90/2019 of Mangalore North Police Station,
Mangaluru City for the offence punishable under Sections
454, 457, 380 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Charge Sheet is laid against the petitioner and other accused persons in Crime No.90/2019 under Sections 454, 380, 414, 411, 212 read with 34 of IPC and Section 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.M.T.Nanaiah appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the respondent. Learned HCGP has filed detailed statement of objection opposing the petition and has produced the copy of PF No.90/2019 and the seizure mahazar dated 24.09.2019.
3. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1, 2 and 5, in order to commit robbery of gold ornaments from Arun Jewellary situated at Bhavanthi Street, -3- Mangaluru, entered the shop drilling a hole in the rear wall of the jewellary shop and broke open the safe locker with gas cutter and robbed 3,431.757 grams of gold ornaments and 20.600 k.g silver ornaments of the value of Rs.1,12,06,871/-. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that accused Nos.1, 6 and 7 assisted the other accused persons to commit theft and to conceal the proceeds of the theft and assisted the other accused persons to dispose off the stolen articles. Further it is alleged that the stolen ornaments were melted into an ingot and same was recovered during the course of investigation.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein has been implicated in the alleged offences solely as a sequel to the Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the wife of the petitioner before the High Court of Kerala alleging illegal detention of the petitioner in a case registered by the respondent police in Ullal Police Station.
-4-
5. Learned HCGP appearing for the State, however, contends that prima facie material is collected in proof of involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. In the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested based on the calls made by accused No.4. The stolen articles were recovered from the house of the petitioner. In the course of investigation, it revealed that the petitioner is involved in two other cases and incriminating evidence was collected to show that accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 had visited Jodavat Jewellery, Bombay to dispose off the stolen ornaments. The machine used for melting the ornaments was also recovered from the petitioner. Further, there is material to show that accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 had checked into Celesta lodge in Mumbai on 04.09.2019. Under the said circumstances, enlargement of the petitioner during the pendency of the investigation would prejudice the case of the prosecution and there is likelihood of the petitioner absconding or fleeing from justice. Further learned HCGP submits that an application is also made to the trial Court for further investigation under Section 173(8) of IPC. -5-
6. On considering the submissions made at the Bar and on going through the material on record, it is noted that in the instant case, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is laid against eight accused persons under Sections 457, 380, 414, 411 and 212 read with 34 of IPC and Section 14 of Foreigners Act 1946. The material allegations against the present petitioner is that he along with accused Nos.6 and 7 assisted other accused persons in committing theft and assisted other accused persons to dispose off the stolen articles. No direct overt acts are alleged against the petitioner. Even though it is stated that the stolen articles were recovered from the house of the petitioner, yet the documents produced along with charge sheet indicate that the recovered articles were subjected to PF No.90/2019. Surprisingly in the said PF, it is mentioned that various bangles, necklaces, chains, bracelets and finger rings were recovered at the instance of the petitioner, but in the charge sheet, it is alleged that ingots were recovered from the house of the petitioner. This PF, therefore, cannot be related to the seizure panchanama -6- relied on by the prosecution. In view of the above discrepancies, prosecution has to go a long way to prove the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offences. Nevertheless, investigation having completed, in my view, the custody of the petitioner is not required to be extended further. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following;
ORDER Petition is allowed.
Petitioner-accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.90/2019 (C.C.No.402/2019) of Mangaluru North Police Station, Mangaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 454, 380, 414, 411, 212 read with 34 of IPC on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, subject to the following conditions:-
a) Petitioner/accused No.1 shall furnish a bond in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with two sureties for the -7- likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
b) Petitioner shall regularly appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing unless exempted by specific orders of the trial Court.
c) He shall not threaten or allure prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
d) He shall not get himself involved in similar offences.
e) He shall not leave the territorial limits of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.
f) In the event any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek for cancellation of the bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM