High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Mohammed Riyaz @ Riyaz vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohammed Riyaz @ Riyaz vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREi*._V

DATED THIS THE 15?" DAY OF DECEMBER 2;o'1oI;;5.'._jf  _

BEFORE

THE HON'B1_E MR. JUSTICE N._,A'I\i;.A"A,DA_'  
CRIMINAL PETITION .No.5'73Vé;'2o1oEii'-he it  it
BETWEEN: C'  A   V C'

SRI MOHAMMED RIYAZ  PIYAZ   ~ A '
S/0 Sri Ibrahim '' '    3
Aged about 22 years,
Residing at i\£o.5~8?',,__ _  _  ' 
Inili, Pavoor -- 574    "  

Mangalore Taiu!~%,.._  "    

D.K.DiStriCt. 1 .,   i  ,_  ' .. PETITIONER

AN

THE STATE Oi; i<-Iv3iARi\|;i\T/AKA?

" 'Rep. _bI}'. the Station' «H.o.I,ise Officer,
 Korarriang-E:iia_'P.o|ice Station,
'-Barfflqa-ioLre,<Citvy,.  .. RESPONDENT

A"~This_"CrtirnAinai Petition is filed under Section 438 of

 ' 'Cr.P.C.,..praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
"Q"-..even,t of his arrest in Crime No.439/2010 of Koramangaia

PciiVcVe"'~Station, Bangaiore city, which is registered for an

 ,OffeI"I'C€"pUF1iShabie under section 392 I.P.C.

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day,

   Court made the foilowing.



ORDER

The petitioner is arrayed as Accused
No.439/2010 registered for an offence pun_i.s_h’a’bieifunider*1

section~392 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counse!__pfor petitioner i’aVnd:._jie=a.rnjed

Government Advocate for the Sta.tVe’;v.._

3. I have been taken rtif;e__’.’—investigation
records. The firsit’ir:formatio:1 ~vvouid”ré’ve_a,l§’the 1″ Accused,
an ex~em-p~ioy:e’e5toil’1f§mp’i.re–..VHotei~~svi’tuate at Koramangaia

alongwith–._ the’ pywrongfully restrained the

informant vviioi was-__carr’yi..n”g cash from Empire Hotel at

.~w.i§orari1a.ng_aia_’to ‘Er”npi.__r.e«Hote| at Castle Street at about 10

-..on__Vi9g’9.._201O and committed robbery of

Rs.’1._,fl4’E5′,6’V9Oé;.’-‘E’Which included cash of Rs.1,33,895/–, sodex

. ‘coupons. .VI5\s.1O,O3O/-, ticket restaurant coupons of

Accused Nos.1 and 2 were chased and

___”?ap’p:reh’ended at the place of incident and the entire stolen

‘iwamount was recovered from their possession and they

were handed over to the Police Station. It appears during

the interrogation both the accused have given the narne-‘».of

the petitioner as the one who had master

robbery. As per the first information, the 15? f

an ex employee of Empire Hotel and
the hotel and also the cash tran_sactVi4o–n_s”of the’.–ho,t’eif. V
confession statements were by the
they were caught red-handed Thecofnfession
statement made by piece of
evidence. Ther;efore.,’Vwitihyouytigoi’ng:fin’to.._fi.irtfher details, the
direction limited period to
enable baii before the

jurisdictioflnal ‘Courtf if
IinV’thV%_e resuit,.._I..pass the foliowing:

ORDER

l”3e.ti’tionV is accepted. Petitioner is granted anticipatory

‘»bailV,’fs’u.bject to following conditions:

1) If petitioner is arrested in Crime No.439/2010 of
Koramangala Police Station, Bangalore City,
registered for an offence punishable under
Section-392 of I.P.C., he shall be released on bail

N. .

on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,0’£:.3:O/–

offering a surety for the likesum.

2) Petitioner shall not intimidate or tam._n§ri..yvétii the”

prosecution witnesses.

3) Petitioner for the purpose oft_i’ri~;estiga§–i,ioVn,: sh;a.l”l”
appear before the Invesijgating Gfficter} vvtieiriiever

called upon to do so. ‘

4) This order would Aoijie.:ative:.ifoAr;~.a”period of two
months 4f_r’o.r__ri todavy’ petitioner
shalt 4_Vseeit?freg.ii:i’aria.tiaiI__’._’Vbefo’;9e’the jurisdictional
Court. learned Judge of the
shallifonsider baii appiication
Without by observations made in

this tgrider.’* _

so/1
EUEGE

AA TGSS)”..*: