Lokesh @ Kencha @ Nayee @ Chappar Loki vs State

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by petitioner/accused u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 397 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 44/2013.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that petitioner with an intention to commit the theft of valuables in the house of C.W. 1, on 15.3.2013 at about 3.15 p.m. illegally entered into the house of C.W. 1 and asked C.W. 1 whether ''brother is not in the house'', in turn, C.W. 1 has answered that he went to work. Immediately the petitioner-accused assaulted C.W. 1 with knife and caused bleeding injuries on her chest, left shoulder and other parts of the body and attempted to kill her. When she shouted, said person ran away from the spot. On the basis of the complaint, case has been registered initially against unknown persons and during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has arrested the present petitioner as an accused person in the case.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that even according to the averments in the complaint as well as the FIR registered, it is against unknown person and even the complainant was not knowing that it is the petitioner who assaulted her and caused the injuries. Even as per the investigation material there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Further, the identification of the present petitioner that he is the assailant is not at all established by the prosecution with prima facie material. He has submitted that the lower Court has rejected the bail application on the ground that he is involved in other cases and submitted that in all the other three cases, the petitioner has been granted with bail. Hence, by imposing any reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to bail. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the bail application No. 1524/91 decided on 30.5.1991.

As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that there are witnesses to the alleged incident and they have stated in their statement about the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. He has also submitted that petitioner is involved in other cases and having criminal antecedents, as such, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, order passed by the lower Court on the bail application and the charge sheet material.

As is submitted, initially, the complaint as well as the FIR was against unknown persons. The Investigating Officer has recorded the voluntary statement of the present petitioner wherein he has stated that if he is taken, he will show the place where he has assaulted the injured. Perusing the other materials collected during investigation, the witness Chandrashekar has mentioned in his statement that when the police called him to the police station on 26.3.2013 and shown him one person, he identified him as the person who ran away on 15.3.2013 at 3.15 p.m. in front of the house bearing No. 125 and he went to the third floor and thereafter in a hurry ran away from the place. Looking to this statement of the witness, it goes to show that in the police station he has identified the present petitioner that on that day he has seen the present petitioner going to the third floor and thereafter, hurriedly going in front of the house of the said witness. The statement of this witness as well as the voluntary statement said to have been given by the present petitioner tallies and also as there are three other cases registered against the present petitioner, it also goes to show that petitioner is having criminal background and is involved in many other cases also. Therefore, looking to the material on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the present petitioner.

Accordingly, petition is rejected.