A Criminal Petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed for regular bail in a dacoity and attempted murder case was rejected. The Court held that CCTV footage, hotel records, and witness identifications placed the petitioner at the scene of the offences, making him unfit for bail.
Criminal petition rejected; petitioner not enlarged on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1442/2022
BETWEEN:
SHRI. MADAN SINGH S/O. ABHAYA SINGH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO.4, NARASIMHA BUIDLING NEAR MILK BOOTH OLD BUS STAND, JIGANI BENGALURU CITY – 560 105.
PERMANANT ADDRESS:
NO.365, RAJPUTANKIVAS DAKHATRA CHALOOR DISTRICT RAJASTHAN STATE – 343 025. … PETITIONER
(BY SRI NATARAJ D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDYARANAYAPURAM POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001. … RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H.S.SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
2
S.C.NO.3/2022 (CR.NO.70/2021) OF VIDYARANYAPURAM POLICE STATION, MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 114, 115, 120B, 216A, 342, 394, 396, 399, 449 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 25, 25(1B), 27(1) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused in Crime No.70/2021 of Vidyaranyapuram Police Station, Mysuru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 114, 115, 120(B), 216(A), 342, 394, 396, 399 and 449 of IPC and Sections 25, 23(1B) and 27(1) of Indian Arms Act, 1959.
3
5 and 6, with an intention to commit dacoity at Amrutha Gold and Silver Palace went to Bombay, wherein accused No.1 was staying and conspired with him and made preparation to commit dacoity at Neelakanta Jewelry Shop and trespassed the same and made an attempt. The accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 also joined hands with the other accused to commit dacoity at Amrutha Gold and Silver Palace and accused No.12 fisted on C.W.1 and caused grievous injury and prevented him not to proceed further. The accused No.4, who brought the rope confined him and committed dacoity and took bangles in the bag and the same was done with the assistance of accused No.2 and accused No.3 was having pistol and live cartridges and shot the person, who was standing outside the jewelry shop and made an attempt to take away the life and accused No.1 shared the subject matter of dacoity i.e., gold ornaments and cash, while going to Hubli in National Travels Bus. The accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 went to Diva East Apartment and handed over cloth to accused No.5 and accused Nos.2 and 5 sold the same to C.W.49 and amount was transferred to their relatives and also to his wife account and planned to go to Mumbai in a flight and accused
4
No.1 also transferred the amount to relatives and stayed in Om Sai Grand Lodge. It is an allegation against this petitioner that he had also joined hands with accused Nos.1 to 5 and stayed in Om Sai Grand Lodge and CCTV footage is collected that they were making preparation to commit dacoity in the Neelakanta Jewelry shop. That on 28.08.2021, made preparation to commit dacoity at Neelakanta Jewelry Shop and accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and this petitioner went in an auto rickshaw belonging to C.W.134 and examined C.W.16, to whom the Neelakanta Jewelry Shop belongs and went inside his shop along with accused No.4 and when they failed to commit the offence at Neelakanta Jewelry Shop, went in an auto rickshaw belonging to C.W.19. That on 22.08.2021, in Ajantha Palace Lodge, accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and this petitioner gave instructions and role of each of the accused. In the CCTV footage of Amrutha Gold and Silver Palace, the same was recorded and accused No.1 fired the injured victim, Chandru and an attempt was made to take away his life and the same is also recorded in the CCTV-DVR. The specific allegation against this petitioner is that he is the resident of Rajasthan and accused
5
No.9 was friend of him from last 10 to 12 years and a case was registered in Crime No.122/2007 for the offence under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC and from 2017 to 2020, he was in Jail and came in contact with accused Nos.2 and 3. This petitioner was having the knowledge that accused No.2 was having pistol and cartridges and he returned to his native place on 18.08.2021 and accused No.9 got transferred the amount by way of phone-pe through C.W.10 and he was having contact with accused Nos.2, 3 and 9 after he had been to his native place. He identified the place for dacoity along with accused No.9 and accused No.6 was identified by Om Sai Grand Lodge Manager and Room Boy and Test Identification Parade was also conducted and apart from that, auto driver has also identified him.
6
been granted in favour of accused Nos.5, 6 and 9 and this petitioner is also not having any criminal antecedents and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.
7
perusal of the material available on record, it is the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has not collected any material against this petitioner. The only allegation is that he was watching the public along with other accused persons and committed the offence of dacoity along with accused Nos.1 to 4. The prosecution also mainly relies upon the CCTV footage, hotel records where this petitioner also stayed along with other accused and the statement of the lodge boy, who identified the petitioner and the auto driver, who took the accused persons to a particular place was also recorded along with the statement of witness. Apart from that, when CDR is also placed before the Court with regard to the fact that this petitioner was in the lodge as well as the spot and when such being the material on record, granting bail in favour of accused No.5 by this Court in Crl.P.No.2054/2022 will not come to the aid of this petitioner since, accused No.5 was not there at the spot. This Court, in Crl.P.No.4900/2022, has taken note of the fact that, only based on the voluntary statement given by the co-accused, the petitioner was implicated
8
and hence, the said order will not come to the aid of this petitioner. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner.
following:
ORDER
The criminal petition is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
ST
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail should be allowed or rejected given the presence of prosecution material including CCTV footage and identification.
If the allegation is that the petitioner only scouted and watched, whether that negates the fitness for bail when CCTV and cellular data place him at the scene.
Whether the grant of bail to co-accused Nos. 5, 6, or 9 aids the petition in light of the specific involvement and materials against this petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Madan Singh
State of Karnataka
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
