ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
2. The present petitioner is said to be accused No. 1, in the following circumstances:
The complainant one Ajit Kolur had filed a complaint on 15.02.2013, to the effect that, when he was proceeding in a goods vehicle along with four others, they were waylaid, and the cash and other valuables have been taken away from them. They were also assaulted by some unknown persons. It is on the basis of arrest made and the extra judicial confession, that several of the accused have been taken into custody, including the present petitioner. The other accused were treated as juveniles and have been enlarged on bail by the competent Court. Whereas the present petitioner's bail petition has been rejected by the Court below and from the order of the Court below, no reasons are assigned for rejection of the same except the observation that the offence is a heinous offence, and that the petitioner is also found to be a habitual offender.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that, there was no identification of any of the accused, it was vaguely stated that the offenders were aged between 25 and 30, whereas, it was found that all the accused were young and that they were juveniles. The present petitioner is apparently 18, though the others have been enlarged on bail, the petitioner has been refused bail, because he was said to be more than 18. Further, it is the finding that the petitioner is a habitual offender, is only on the basis of certain other cases that have even foisted against him subsequent to his arrest; prior to that, there were no such cases, in which the petitioner was named as an accused. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the benefit extended to other accused ought to be extended to the present petitioner as well, as there was no clear identification of any of the accused, except on the basis of the extra judicial confession, certain recovery said to have been made, there is no material to implicate the petitioner on prima facie finding of his involvement.
4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader opposes the petition.
5. From the circumstances alleged, it is evident that it is only on the basis of suspicion that the petitioner has been taken into custody. There is no clear statement of alleged recovery from the petitioner and since, other accused have been given the benefit of bail, only on the ground that they were juveniles and this petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail. Therefore, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a self bond for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with a solvent surety, for a like sum, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without seeking leave of that Court.
ii) The petitioner shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing.
iii) The petitioner shall not influence or seek to threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner.