Judgment:
ORDER
Jawad Rahim, J.
1. The petitioner is arraigned as Accused No. 6 in Crime No. 81/2004 by Peenya Police Station, which is for investigation of offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC.
2. The petitioner is in judicial custody attar his arrest en 10-3-2009 from there, he made an attempt before the learned Magistrate which failed and then before the learned City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore without any benefit and this is the third attempt.
3. According to the Prosecution, the petitioner along with five others indulged in chain snatching, dacoity and theft of several persons who became the victims. One amongst them was a woman who lodged a report about the theft of Mangalya Sara and other articles. The Investigating Officer registered it and during the course of investigation, the petitioner canto to he arrested. The other accused who were arraigned as Accused NOS. 2 to 4 gave voluntary statement, which lead to recovery of several articles. Further statement of the complainant was recorded on 10-3-2009 and some more articles were seized.
4. Petitioner is said to be one of the accused who had indulged in trespass into the house of the complainant and committed robbery during the alienation of which, he has been roped as co-accused. The further statement of the complainant Smt. Pushpa is that actually theft was committed in her house, when she was in the kitchen, these persons are said to have entered the house and holding a threat committed robbery by force-opening the almarah and other boxes. Wherefore, it is seen that it is a case of committing trespass into the premises of the complainant.
5. The prosecution case does not seem to be served with any test identification parade. Therefore, at this juncture, identity of the accused is questioned which needs answer. There may be recovery of gold articles, which comprised of gold rings, gold chains, etc., which are said to have been identified by the complainant and others, hut as regards this petitioner is concerned, there is no direct material evidence indicating the recovery.
6. In the circumstances, the say of the petitioner that he is a Student of PUC and by mistake of identity he has been implicated cannot be brushed aside. Be that as it may, the investigation seems to have reached final stage and there is nothing much to be done according to the prosecution itself. Since the case of the petitioner is based on the statement of the co-accused and recovery of some gold articles from the possession of other accused, the petitioner could be admitted to bail with appropriate conditions to dispel the apprehension of prosecution. Hence, the order.
7. The petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate;
(ii) The petitioner shall report at the Complainant-Police Station every week en Saturday or Sunday between 7.00 a.m. and 7.00. p.m. till the trial commences;
(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without prior permission; and
(iv) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.