IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 31 N ‘DAY OF JANUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CR1MiNA[ PETITON No.8180/2010 BETWEEN: Shri. Badal, S/o. Pitambar Navalekar, Age: 47 years, 0cc: Service, Rio. Santosh Nagar, Hubli, Dist: Dharwad. . . Petitioner (By Shri. (i.L. Huller. Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka, Through Nippani Town Police Station, Nippani, Dist: Belgaum. Represented by S.P.P. . . . Respondent (By Shri. Vinavak S. Kulkami. Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Nippani Town P.S. Crime No.140/2009 for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the lollowing: 2 ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The petitioner claims that the allegations against him in a pending criminal case are without basis. The petitioner claims to be a school teacher and being married with school going children, there is no allegation of any overt act against him. 3. In this regard, the counsel for the petitioner would also point out that this Court in relation to three other persons who are accused in the very same incident, have been enlarged on bail, notwithstanding that the prosecution has alleged that the recovery of certain articles has been made from the said accused. in the face of the circumstance, that the petitioner has under gone a serious illness and he was hospitalized for a sustained period of time and still continues to recuperate from the said surgery, the petitioner seeks consideration of the present bail petition. The petitioner had approached the Court of 3 Sessions and his petition has been rejected. The Court of Sessions, in its order has reasoned that the petitioner had failed to disclose his occupation in the first instance and the petition seeking to put forward his case in a dramatic fashion, has not appealed to the Court. Accordingly, the same has been rejected. 4. The learned Government Pleader has filed detailed objections to contend that the complainant is working with a company based in Ahemdabad which has a branch at Hubli city. The Company is engaged in transportation of gold jewellary, cash and other documents from several places in India. The Complainant and one other were entrusted with the duty of transportation. It is their case that a parcel, which they were carrying in a bus, was taken away from them, after diverting their attention by the alleged concerted act of several of the accused. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that there are incriminating materials against the accused. Firstly, the statement of complainant’s co employee, the statement of the bus driver and the conductor of the bus, in which the incident had taken place and the recovery ‘S 4 ofthe articles which were robbed from the complainant and that the accused is further involved in many cases of a similar nature. However, the learned Government Pleader, being called upon to furnish the particulars of such other cases in which the accused No.1 is involved, he is at a loss. 5. As seen from the record, that is now produced, the petitioner has certainly undergone a stint at a hospital and the illness from which he was suffering could not have been imitated. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, this Court has chosen to enlarge three other accused in the same incident on bail, notwithstanding that recoveries were made from them. By a parity of reasoning this petitioner, who claims to be a school teacher and is manied with school going children, would require consideration by this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: 1) He shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of !25,000I- with a solvent surety for a like sum, to the satisfaction ofthe trial Court. 2) He shall make himself available to the Investigation Officer as and when required for the purposes of investigation. 3) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without seeking leave of that Court. 4) He shall not seek to induce or threaten the prosecution witnesses. 5) He shall attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail subject to the Court granting exemption for good and valid reason. Sd1 Rsh 3UD