Deekshitha Sharmile

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar dismissed a bail plea by an accused booked for robbery, noting that there is no requirement to obtain the accused’s signature on the record of a test identification parade. The case concerns allegations that the complainant, while walking on a road, was stopped by an unknown scooter rider who threatened him with a machete-like long chopper, robbed cash, and warned him against reporting the incident.

The complainant alleged that an unknown person robbed him of Rs.3,600. The accused allegedly threw the victim’s mobile phone on the ground and threatened to kill him if he disclosed the incident.

Also Read: Credible Eyewitness Testimony Sufficient For Murder Conviction Even Without Recovery Of Weapons: Supreme Court

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the offence punishable under Section 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner’s counsel argued that there was delay in lodging the complaint, absence of description of the accused in the complaint, and lack of mention of the vehicle number. It was also contended that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents and was aged 24 years.

The prosecution opposed the bail plea, submitting that the weapon and scooter were recovered at the instance of the accused, and the victim identified him during a test identification parade conducted by the Magistrate. It was argued that the offence carried a minimum sentence of seven years and granting bail could result in repetition of similar offences and intimidation of witnesses.

The Court recorded: “As per the charge sheet, the case of the prosecution is that on 07.11.2025 at about 03.00 p.m., when CW1/first informant was walking along the road, an unknown person came on a scooter, stopped him, shown a machete-like long chopper, and threatened him to hand over money.”

It further stated: “It is alleged that the said person robbed a sum of Rs.3,600/-, threw the victim's mobile phone on the ground, threatened to kill him if he informed anyone about the incident, and thereafter fled away from the spot on the scooter.” The Court observed: “After arrest of this petitioner, there is a recovery of weapon and bike used by the petitioner at his instance.”

On the test identification parade, the Court recorded: “The test identification parade has been conducted wherein the first informant has identified the petitioner as the person who robbed the cash from him by showing deadly weapon.”

Addressing the contention regarding signature, the Court stated: “There is no any mandate to take signature of the petitioner on the records of test identification parade as contended by the learned counsel for petitioner.”

Regarding the gravity of offence, the Court observed: “The offence alleged against the petitioner is provided with sentence of imprisonment not less than seven years.” On the risk of bail, the Court noted: “If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of he committing similar offence, and threatening the prosecution witnesses.”

Also Read: EPF Penalty For Delayed Contributions Cannot Fall Below 25% Of Arrears: Karnataka High Court

Finally, the Court concluded: “Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has not paid out any grounds for grant of bail.”

The Court directed: “There is a recovery of weapon and bike used by the petitioner at his instance. The test identification parade has been conducted wherein the first informant has identified the petitioner as the person who robbed the cash from him by showing deadly weapon. There is no any mandate to take signature of the petitioner on the records of test identification parade as contended by the learned counsel for petitioner. The offence alleged against the petitioner is provided with sentence of imprisonment not less than seven years. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of he committing similar offence, and threatening the prosecution witnesses. Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has not paid out any grounds for grant of bail. In the result, the petition is dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri. R. Prasanna Rao, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Mohd. Ayub Ali, Additional State Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Syed Saif v The State of Karnataka
Neutral Citation: NC: 2026:KHC:10494
Case Number: CRL.P No. 16636 of 2025
Bench: Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar