Kamala vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—This petition is filed by petitioners/accused 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 465, 468, 471, 419 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 249 of 2012. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments has submitted that on the complaint of C.W. 1 case was registered against accused 1 to 6 and now the investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed and they have been already released on bail. It is further submitted that C.W. 1 has filed another application before the Superior Police Officers requesting that some more persons are involved in the case. Hence, further enquiry has to be made with regard to those persons also. Accused 5 is none other than the husband and father of the present petitioners herein. Petitioners are the joint owners along with accused 5 of Sy. No. 235 measuring 7 acres 10 guntas, which is adjacent to the land of the complainant. The police officials are trying to arrest the petitioners and petitioners are having the reasonable apprehension of their arrest at the hands of respondent-police. Though sufficient material has been placed before the learned Sessions Judge that the present petitioners are joint owners of the land in Sy. No. 235 along with accused 5 and also made out a case that they are having reasonable apprehension of their arrest, the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly held that petitioners have not established their reasonable apprehension of arrest at the hands of respondent-police. It is submitted that petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and not involved in the commission of the offences and that they are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the Court. Hence, they may be admitted to anticipatory bail.

As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that there is a prima facie case even against the present petitioners. He drew the attention of this Court to the application filed by C.W. 1 requesting the Higher Superior Police Officers to make further enquiry in the matter and in the said application allegations are also made against the present petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that present petitioners are not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

I have perused the application filed by C.W. 1 making a request to the Police Officers for further investigation in the matter in respect of some more persons who are said to have been involved in the commission of the alleged offences. Looking to the application filed by the C.W. 1 specifically taking the name of the present petitioners in the said application and making allegations that they are also involved in the commission of the alleged offences itself goes to show that the present petitioners are having the apprehension of their arrest at the hands of respondent-police. Therefore, their apprehension is well-founded. As submitted, the other accused persons against whom originally the complaint was filed and charge-sheet has been filed i.e., accused 1 to 6 are already on bail. The alleged offences are all triable by the Magistrate Court and not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In view of the materials placed on record by the petitioners and their pleading in the petition, it cannot be said that there is no apprehension of arrest of the petitioners at the hands of the respondent-police. The petitioners have also undertaken in the bail petition that they are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. Therefore, looking to these materials on record, I am of the opinion that petitioners are entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 419 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 249 of 2012, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

(ii) They shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

(iii) They shall make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for.

(iv) They shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute personal bond and also surety bond.