Kumara vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No. 5 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 alleged offences punishable u/s 379 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 348/2013.

The brief facts of the case on hand are that on 21.10.2013 complainant Smt. H.M. Lalitha, W/o Krishnamurthy lodged the complaint alleging that they are residing in Hassan for education purpose of their children; her husband owns coffee estate in Sy. No. 120 of Banbaloor village and he used to visit the said estate often. Since, he is not able to travel and walk, she herself visits the coffee estate and takes care of the same. On 19.10.2013 she had visited the estate and to her sudden shock she found that two kooli trees were removed by theft from the said estate. Thereafter, she has discussed the matter with her husband and later lodged the complaint to the respondent-police for recovery of the said trees valued at Rs. 40,000/-. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioner placing him as accused No. 5 along with four other accused persons.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 5 and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State. I have also perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the order passed by the lower Court in Crl. Misc. No. 1269/2013 dated 4.12.2013.

It is alleged that two kooli trees were removed from the estate of the complainant and during the course of investigation, police have arrayed the present petitioner as accused No. 5 and other four accused persons as accused Nos. 1 to 4. The other four accused persons applied for bail before the lower Court and the lower Court has granted bail to them and as the application of the present petitioner has been rejected, he has approached this Court.

As per the case of the prosecution, serious allegations are made against the present petitioner and also the case is still under investigation and it is necessary for the police to interrogate the present petitioner.

But the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He is not at all involved in the alleged offence. The police have already recovered the pieces of kooli trees in the presence of panch witnesses. So nothing is to be recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. As such, by imposing any reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to bail.

The offence alleged u/s 379 of IPC is triable by the Magistrate Court and not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Since other four accused persons are already on bail and looking to the averments in the complaint it is seen that similar allegations are made against all the five accused, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner can be granted with anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-police is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable u/s 379 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 348/2013 subject to the following conditions:

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

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

(iii) He shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for.

(iv) He shall give attendance before the respondent-police on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. till the completion of the investigation.

(v) He 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.