G. Srinivas Murthy. G @ SEENA vs State Of Karnataka

Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J

Crl.P.2173/2021 is filed by accused No.2 and Crl.P.2197/2021 is filed by accused No.3; both these petitions are filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for

seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.227/2020 of Yeshwanthapura Police Station, Bengaluru City,

registered for the offence punishable under Section 324, 307, 506, 201 read with 34 of IPC (C.C.No.2517/2021 pending on the file of XXIV Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru).

The facts leading to this petition are that on the complaint filed by the injured-victim, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that the

complainant, who was working in a dance bar, had acquaintance with accused No.1 by name Biju. On 23.10.2020 evening at about 5.00 p.m. the

complainant had gone to the house of accused No.1-Biju, and his friends by name Seena and Vishwanath Reddy were there. After having food, the

said Seena and Vishwanath Reddy left the house and then the complainant and accused No.1-Biju were talking to each other. At about 06:45 p.m.

accused No.1-Biju proposed to marry the complainant, when she refused on the reason that she is already married, accused No.1 assaulted her with

knife, as a result of which she became unconscious. Thereafter, accused No.1 and another person carried her to hospital. On the basis of the said

complaint, the police have registered the case against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Subsequently, offence

punishable under Sections 307, 506 of IPC have been inserted. After completion of investigation, the police have submitted the charge sheet, wherein

the petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3.

On filing the charge sheet, the police officials started making attempts to arrest these petitioners, apprehending their arrest, they had approached the

sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail, but the sessions Court rejected their bail application on the reason that investigation of the case is in progress

and the petitioners have failed to make out any grounds for granting anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that initially the case was registered against accused No.1-Biju. Even according to the complaint

averments, the petitioners were not present at the time of incident. Even in the further statement, she has not mentioned the names of these

petitioners. Subsequently, when the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Magistrate, the complainant has stated about the

presence of these petitioners, who have been arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3. Even according to the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the overt-

acts alleged to have been committed by these petitioners are that they have held the victim-complainant and accused No.1 has stabbed with knife.

Thus, the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC is not attracted as far as these petitioners are concerned. These petitioners have been falsely implicated in

this case. In the event of arrest and detention, petitioners would be put to great hardship and injustice.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant-victim, submitted that

there are specific allegations in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. about the overt-acts done by petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. These

petitioners have managed that the case is initially registered against accused No.1. Since the victim was not aware of Kannada language, the

information was suppressed before the Investigating Officer. At this stage, there are no grounds to hold that these petitioners are falsely implicated in

this case. Thus, these petitions deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the complaint

averments and the prosecution records.

As could be seen from the prosecution records available at this stage, the complaint averments are only against accused No.1-Biju, who is said to

have stabbed the complainant with knife. In the further statement, the victim-complainant has only stated regarding the assault done by accused No.1.

Later when the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Magistrate, the victim has stated about the presence of the petitioners-

accused Nos.2 and 3. The overt-acts of these petitioners are that they have held the complainant and accused No.1 has assaulted her. At this stage it

is needless to make elaborate discussion about the prosecution records and give specific finding whether the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC can be

attracted as far as these petitioners are concerned. There are no specific records at the initial stage to confirm the presence of the petitioners at the

time of incident.

While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to

the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused.

The grounds stated in the bail petition and submission of learned counsel for the petitioners goes to prove the apprehension of the petitioners

regarding their arrest and detention. It is submitted that petitioners are residing at the address shown in the cause title, which is not disputed by the

prosecution. The apprehension of the prosecution that in the event of granting bail they are likely to cause threat to the victim- complainant and

prosecution witnesses. The said objection can be set right by imposing stringent conditions.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners

subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

Criminal petitions are allowed.

Consequently, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.227/2020 of Yeshwanthapura

Police Station, Bengaluru City, registered for the offence punishable under Section 324, 307, 506, 201 read with 34 of IPC (C.C.No.2517/2021 pending

on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru), subject to following conditions:

i. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On appearance

of petitioners, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate and release them on bail;

ii. The petitioners shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two sureties for the like sum to the

satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

iii. The petitioners shall co-operate in the event of further investigation, if necessary and they shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and

when required; and

iv. The petitioners shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses.

I.A.No.1/2021 for impleading the complainant as respondent No.2 is disposed of.