AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.
The summary of the case of the prosecution is that on 28.10.2016 at about 9.45 p.m., when the complainant was returning from Mandya to Bengaluru, he had stopped his car near Mandya on the side of Highway to attend nature''s call. At that time, about 5 to 6 persons coming in a white colour car, approached the complainant, threatened him at the point of pistol and forcibly snatched his ATM Card and cell phone. According to the complainant, they also collected password of the ATM card by threatening him at the point of pistol and withdrew huge amount from the ATM. It is his further the case that the culprits also took away his car and cell phone stating that the complainant can redeem them by paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Though initially the FIR was lodged against six unknown accused, after conducting investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against 15 accused among whom the present petitioner is accused No.14. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that even according to the prosecution, there is no direct involvement of the present petitioner. The only allegation made against him is introducing accused No.1 to accused No.15. Even the said allegation is also without any corroboration.
On the other hand, learned State Public Prosecutor in his argument submitted that the present petitioner is a habitual offender against whom there are more than 23 crimes pending.
A perusal of the materials placed before the Court at this stage, go to show that even according to the complainant-Police, the present petitioner was not the one among those accused persons who were said to be present before the complainant and robbed him at the point of pistol. According to the case paper, the role alleged against the present petitioner is only introducing accused No.15 to accused No.1 which has resulted in enabling accused No.1 acquiring a pistol from accused No.15. The said allegation requires to be subjected to a serious test during trial. As such, at this stage, I am of the view that the continuation of the present petitioner in judicial custody is not warranted. The apprehension of the prosecution that the accused may flee from the trial can be checked by imposing suitable conditions.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The petitioner/accused be enlarged on regular bail in Cr.No.537/2016 by the respondent-Srirangapatna Police Station, subject to the condition that:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties to the satisfaction of the enlarging authority;
ii) He shall appear before the Court on all hearing dates.
iii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.