LAWS(KAR)-2009-4-62

VEERAHADRAIAH S/O RAMAIAH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NELAMANGALA POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Decided On April 30, 2009
Veerahadraiah S/O Ramaiah Appellant
V/S
State Of Karnataka By Nelamangala Police Represented By State Public Prosecutor Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is ranked as accused No. 5 in Cr. No. 1117/08 on the file of Nelamangala Police Station which is under investigation for en offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case reveals that on a report submitted by Abdul Rehaman, who is police constable in Peenya Police Station, the case in question was registered against unknown persons on the allegation that on 1.12.2008, while he was waiting for bus at Jalahalli Cross, be noticed Tata Sumo Vehicle soliciting passengers. He boarded the vehicle to alight at Narasandra, but enroute to that place on the National Highway, a person seated in the rear side of the Sumo holding threat to his life robbed all his belongings. He specifically alleged that there were seven occupants in the vehicle. Out of two passengers, one of the occupants placed a knife at his neck while the other threatened him. They robbed him and he was thrown out of the vehicle, so also other passenger of the vehicle.

(3.) FROM the gamut of such materials, it is seen that petitioner's name came up as one of the offenders (accused No. 5). But the prosecution does not dispute the contention of the petitioner that nothing has been recovered from his possession and his implication is only on the statement of co -accused. Such material in my opinion, does not make out any prima facie case against accused for an offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC at least on today. Possibly further investigation made reveals material incriminating against him. It is also seen that this court in Cr. No. B51/09 has admitted accused No. 2 -Prasanna Kumar to bail against whom not only the prosecution material shows he was in possession of the stolen articles, but was also in possession of the vehicle used in the crime. When such a person has been admitted to bail, I find the request made by the petitioner to grant him anticipatory bail would certainly be entertained.