- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3531 CRL.P NO.13436 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M. G. UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13436 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. RAKESH L. PINTO, S/O. VINCY LANCY PINTO AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT D. NO.1-115, PINTO VILLA, BALKUNJA POST, IKALA VILLAGE, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 141. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANTWAL RURAL POLICE STATION, DAKSHINA KANNADA MANGALURU - 574 211. REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VENKAT SATHANARAYAN, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN SC.NO.131/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.03/2024 REGISTERED BY THE BANTWAL RURAL POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 395, 397 AND 411 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3531 CRL.P NO.13436 OF 2024 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.03/2024 registered by the Bantwal Rural Police Station, pending in S.C. No.131/2024 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Marita Synthiya Pinto. 2. Heard Sri. Harish N.R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Venkat Sathyanarayan, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3531 CRL.P NO.13436 OF 2024 “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code?” My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 4. The petitioner being accused No.2 is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 22.01.2024 and since then, he is in judicial custody. 5. Initially, F.I.R. came to be registered against four unknown persons on the basis of first information lodged by the victim. The investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 7. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused Nos.1 to 4 have barged inside the house of the victim and committed dacoity, while accused Nos.5 and 6 were having watch and ward outside the house. Accused Nos.1 and 3 were armed with weapons and threatened the victim. The stolen property was recovered from accused No.7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though the petitioner was apprehended on 22.01.2024, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3531 CRL.P NO.13436 OF 2024 the test identification parade was not conducted immediately, But, CW1 is said to have identified the petitioner in the Police Station on the date of his arrest i.e., on 22.01.2024. 7. It is the contention of learned High Court Government Pleader that the test identification parade was held on 30.02.2024 on which date, the informant identified the petitioner. The further statement of CW1 produced along with petition discloses that CW1 had identified the petitioner in the Police Station on 22.01.2024. When on the date of arrest, the petitioner is said to have identified in the Police Station subsequent conducting of test identification parade loses its importance. Admittedly, the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and he was not armed with any weapon at the time of commission of offence even though he was the member of the unlawful assembly. It is stated that the criminal proceedings is pending for hearing before charge. In the meantime, accused No.6 is already enlarged on bail. 8. In view of the above, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement to his right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3531 CRL.P NO.13436 OF 2024 to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution. 9. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following. ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner-accused No.2 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.03/2024 of Bantwala Rural Police Station which is now pending in S.C. No.131/2024 on the file the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions: a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences. b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required. If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3531 CRL.P NO.13436 OF 2024 On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE ARK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 6