Mr Joshi R Thomas vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Joshi R. Thomas, accused No. 4, is seeking bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He was apprehended on January 27, 2024, and is currently in judicial custody. The case arises from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by an injured eye-witness against five accused individuals. The FIR alleges that accused Nos. 1 to 4 entered a jewelry shop, impersonated GST officials, and demanded to check the hallmark and purity of gold ornaments. They seized gold ornaments and a CCTV DVR. When the informant questioned their conduct and demanded ID cards, they allegedly threatened him and fled with the seized items. The informant pursued them, and the accused attempted to run him over with their vehicle, causing simple abrasions. The charge sheet states that the stolen jewelry was recovered at the instance of accused Nos. 1 to 4, and the complainant and other witnesses identified the accused. Accused No. 5 is reportedly absconding.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that he was falsely implicated, stating that this could not be accepted at this stage given the prima facie material. The Court also dismissed the arguments regarding delay in lodging the complaint and the non-registration of the FIR immediately, noting that the FIR was lodged within two hours of the incident. Regarding the invocation of Section 395 of the IPC, the Court found the prosecution's contention that accused No. 5 also participated in the offense and was driving the car to be valid, especially since the FIR named five persons and accused No. 5 was still absconding. Considering the facts, the nature and seriousness of the offense, and the prima facie material, the Court concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code? The petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated and had not committed any offense. They also argued that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and that the police did not register the FIR immediately after the incident. Furthermore, they argued that Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could not be invoked against accused Nos. 1 to 4. The State, represented by the High Court Government Pleader, argued against granting bail, citing the nature and seriousness of the offenses and the prima facie material on record. The State also countered the arguments regarding delay and the applicability of Section 395 IPC, noting that the FIR was lodged within two hours of the incident and that accused No. 5's involvement was alleged, with him still being absconding.