B.K. Ravi Kumar vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner -- accused u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307 r/w. Section 34 of IPC registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 297/2013.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent--State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument submitted that there is a delay of one day in lodging the complaint. He also made the submission that there is a land dispute between the injured and the petitioner and because of that reason the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He made the submission that the injured has been already discharged from the hospital and the injuries sustained, two are simple in nature and one is grievous in nature. He submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be granted with bail.

As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that there are statement of injured as well as the eyewitnesses who have clearly stated that it is the petitioner along with other accused persons assaulted the injured and caused the bleeding injuries. Hence, he made the submission that there is a prima-facie case made out by the prosecution that the present petitioner has committed the alleged offences. Hence, submitted to reject the petition.

I have perused the averments made in the petition, FIR, complaint and order passed by the lower Court on the bail petition and other materials on record. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the injured has already discharged from the hospital and his condition is out of danger. I have also perused the injury certificate and doctor has mentioned that the injured sustained, two are simple in nature and one is grievous in nature. The offence alleged u/s 307 is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Regarding the contention of the prosecution that the present petitioner is absconding and not available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation, conditions can be imposed for securing his presence before the Investigating Officer as well as before the concerned Court which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, the petitioner has made out a case of his reasonable apprehension of arrest at the hands of the respondent -- police.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307 r/w. Section 34 of IPC registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 297/2013, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate Court;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for;

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent-police on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. till the completion of the investigation; and

(v) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within thirty days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond and also the surety bond.