- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7667 CRL.P No. 1384 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1384 OF 2025 (438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS)) BETWEEN: AKRAM PASHA @ AKRAM @ DAN AKRAM, (DELIBERATELY REFERRED WITH TAINTED NAME) S/O MAKBOOL AMJAD, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO. 475, 13TH CROSS, GHOUSIYANAGAR, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE - 570 019. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY CHAMARAJANAGARA EAST POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE AT ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, OPP TO VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHI, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN C.C.NO.1006/2023 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.122/2022 CHAMARAJANAGARA EAST POLICE PENDING Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7667 CRL.P No. 1384 of 2025 ON THE FILES OF HONBLE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M..F.C CHAMARAJANAGAR FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 395 AND 397 OF IPC WHEREIN THE PETITIONER IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.4. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER This petition is preferred by accused No.4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.122/2022 of Chamarajanagar East Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. 2. Initially, case was registered against 4 unknown persons, on a complaint lodged by one Sri. Babu Rajendra Prasad. 3. Charge sheet is filed against accused No.1 to 6, showing accused Nos.4 and 6 as absconding, for the offence punishable under Section 395 and 397 of IPC. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.4 in the charge sheet. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7667 CRL.P No. 1384 of 2025 4. As per complaint averments, complainant is working in RMC Mixture plant situated in Madapura village, Chamarajanagar, as a security guard. On 29.08.2022 at about 12:30 a.m., while he was on duty, three persons came in a vehicle and asked for water to fill the radiator of the vehicle. Another person asked for water for drinking. When he was about to give water, they surrounded him and tied a towel around his neck and at knife point, snatched his mobile phone, key and battery and then locked him in the room. Thereafter, they took away 4 old vibrating motors worth Rs.20,000/-, 9 L shape angular worth Rs.54,000/-, 240 supporting rods measuring 1 meter, worth Rs.80,000/- and two bags of supporting couplers worth Rs.10,000/-, in total, materials worth Rs.1,64,000/-. 5. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the FIR it is alleged that 4 accused are involved, however, during the Test Identification Parade (T.I. Parade) complainant has stated that there were three accused involved in the commission - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7667 CRL.P No. 1384 of 2025 of the offence. Once again, he changed his version, on 17.12.2022 and stated that there were 4 persons involved. He contended that the complainant has identified all the four arrested accused in the T.I. Parade conducted on 17.12.2022 and therefore, petitioner has been falsely arraigned as an accused. It is his contention that when it is the specific case of the complainant that 4 persons have committed the offence and having identified all the 4 accused, petitioner is not required for interrogation or T.I. Parade. He therefore, contended that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for bail on the ground that he is required for T.I. Parade. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that vehicle allegedly used in the commission of the offence has been seized in this case, but the Investigating Officer has not made any efforts to locate the Registered owner of the vehicle. The Registered owner is neither arraigned as an accused or a witness in this - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7667 CRL.P No. 1384 of 2025 case, which shows the investigation conducted in this case is biased. 7. Learned counsel further contended that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case, on the basis of the voluntary statement of the co-accused. Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are already enlarged on bail. Petitioner has no criminal antecedents and therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail, by imposing any conditions. 8. Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that complainant has given further statement stating there were 6 accused involved in the commission of the offence and petitioner is one of the accused. He has received Rs.5,000/- out of the booty. He contended that accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 are enlarged on regular bail after T.I. Parade was conducted. Petitioner is required for T.I. Parade and therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 9. It is no doubt, initially case was registered against 4 unknown persons. In the further statement of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7667 CRL.P No. 1384 of 2025 the complainant, he has stated that there were totally six persons involved in the commission of the offence. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that complainant's further statement was recorded after an inordinate delay of 2 months. However, the fact remains that in the course of investigation, it was revealed that six persons were involved in the offence. 4 accused were arrested. They were identified by the complainant in the T.I. Parade. The veracity of the Test Identification Parade cannot be gone into at this stage. According to prosecution, petitioner is also one of the accused who committed the offence. While filing charge sheet, Section 395 and Section 397 have been invoked. Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are released on regular bail and therefore, grant of bail to the said accused will not come to the aid of the petitioner. 10. In view of the further statement of the complainant that six persons are involved in the commission of offence, the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for T.I. Parade, cannot be - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7667 CRL.P No. 1384 of 2025 rejected. In the event anticipatory bail is granted, petitioner cannot be subjected to T.I. Parade. Petitioner is therefore not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT: BHK