Dayananda vs State of Karnataka

Since these two petitions are in respect of the same crime number and similar questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, they

are taken together to dispose of them by this common order in order to avoid repetition of law and facts.

Crl.P.No.9922/2017 is filed by accused No.1 and Crl.P.No.9923/2017 is filed by accused No.2, both under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking

anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under

Section 353 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.206/2016.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments submitted that false allegations are made against the petitioners herein for

the alleged offence. The petitioners have also filed a complaint, which is registered in Crime No.205/2016. Even if the contents of the complaint

are perused, it will not make out a case of the alleged offence as against the petitioners herein. He has submitted that now investigation is

completed and charge sheet is also filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner in both the cases may be admitted to anticipatory

bail.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that Ashraf who was the victim and the

injured was brought to the police station along with another injured and the CPI told the complainant that since the another injured is seriously

injured, he will take him to the hospital for treatment and let Ashraf be in the police station since there was galata going on nearby the mosque. So

stating, Ashraf was made to sit in the police station, but the petitioners herein being the Personal Assistant and Gunman of the MLA respectively,

came to the police station and insisted the complainant to release Ashraf and send along with them. The same was opposed by the complainant

stating that he has to follow instructions of the superior officer and he has to come and enquire Ashraf, till which time he cannot be sent along with

them. However, forcibly these two petitioners held the hands of Ashraf and took him along with them eventhough complainant and others tried to

prevent the petitioners. On the basis of the said complaint case was registered.

The materials on record show that these two petitioners highhandedly entered into the police station and took Ashraf along with them. The

materials also show that during the entire period of investigation the petitioners were not available to the investigating officer and the charge sheet

has been filed. Now NBW has been issued against both of the petitioners.

Looking to the conduct of the petitioners, I am of the opinion that these are not the fit cases to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners

for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, both the petitions are hereby dismissed.