Francis vs State

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioners/accused 1 and 2 u/s 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-Police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered by the respondent-Police Station in Crime No. 36 of 2014. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners during the course of his argument submitted that the petitioners have not at all involved in the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in the case. Learned Counsel made the submission that even according to the averments made in the complaint, the allegations are against the Hospital Authorities, who are working in the said establishment and not against the present petitioners. He also submitted that there is delay in lodging the complaint and delay in submitting the FIR before the Magistrate. He submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any of the conditions imposed by the Court. Hence, he submitted to allow the petition.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that looking to the allegations made in the complaint and also statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, it clearly goes to show that the petitioners committed the alleged offences. He submitted that the present petitioners are absconded. Their custodial interrogation is necessary to the Investigating Officer and he has to collect the documents also. Hence, he submitted that when investigation of the case is still pending, the petitioners are not entitled with anticipatory bail. Hence, he submitted to reject the application.

I have perused the bail petition and other materials placed on record. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged in the very first sentence itself that the alleged offences are committed on 31-12-2013 but the complaint was filed on 17-1-2014. So, there is delay of lodging the complaint even after coming to know of the said offences are committed. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, looking to the endorsements made by the concerned Magistrate on the complaint, it is received on 19-1-2014 at about 7.20 p.m. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the case was registered on 17-1-2014, so even for submitting the complaint before the Magistrate Court again there is delay of three days. The prosecution first has to explain these things and offer possible explanation why there is delay in submitting before the Court. The petitioners have contended in the bail petition that they have not at all committed the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in the case. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel that the wife of petitioner 1 has submitted the document before the Hospital Authority and nothing further is to be seized from the present petitioners.

Looking to the allegations made in the complaint and alleged offences, they are triable by the Magistrate Court and they are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The apprehension of the prosecution as submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader that these petitioners are absconded and not available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation and to secure the presence of these two petitioners before the Investigating Officer, stringent conditions can be imposed. Hence, the petition is allowed. The respondent-Police are directed to release the petitioners/accused 1 and 2 on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC registered by the respondent-Police Station in Crime No. 36 of 2014, subject to the following conditions.--

(i) Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;

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

(iii) Petitioners shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for;

(iv) Petitioners shall appear before the respondent-Police once in fortnight preferably on Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon till the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet; and

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