AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is filed seeking enlargement of petitioners on anticipatory bail in Crime No.745/2015, registered in Kamakshipalya Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 506, 324, 355, 34, 504 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [''Act'' for short].
Heard Shri. B. Keshava Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri. S. Vishwa Murthy, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners arguing in support of the petition submits that the 2nd petitioner is the landlord and the other petitioners are the family members. Complainant is the tenant. Initially, Complainant got an FIR registered on 5.11.2015 in Crime No.675/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 506, 34, 355, 504 IPC said to have been taken place on 3.11.2015. Subsequently, on 9.12.2015, she got another false complaint in Crime No.745/2015 registered alleging commission of aforementioned offences on 4.12.2015 at 9.30 p.m. He submitted that a dispute between the landlord and tenant is sought to be projected in this manner to harass the landlord. He further submitted that the marriage of 1st petitioner is fixed to be celebrated on 19.3.2017. In the circumstances, he prays for protection of petitioners herein in the form of an anticipatory bail.
Bail is opposed by Shri S. Vishwa Murthy, learned HCGP for the respondent/State on the premise that there are consecutive complaints against the petitioners.
I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned HCGP & perused the material papers.
Indeed, a complaint was lodged on 5.11.2015 in respect of certain offences said have taken place on 3.11.2015. The instant FIR is admittedly registered on 9.12.2015 in respect of the offences mentioned therein alleged to have taken place on 4.12.2015. An Invitation Card annexed to the petition shows that the marriage of the 1st petitioner is scheduled to be celebrated on 19.3.2017.
Offences alleged against the petitioners under IPC are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. So far as offences punishable under the ''Act'', it is to be noted that this Court in the case of B.J. Ajit Kumar and another v. State of Karnataka reported in 2016(3) AKR 594, has held that the delay in filing the complaint will have to be viewed seriously. In the said case, the incident has taken place on 14.1.2016 and FIR was registered on the next day. In the instant case, the alleged incident has taken place on 4.12.2015 and FIR is registered on 9.12.2015. This Court has precisely held as follows:-
"Inordinate delay in filing the first information report to the Police and the first information report by the police to the Court will have to be taken into consideration for the limited purpose of disposing of the bail application and also to know whether the threshold bar found under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, could be made applicable squarely. Whatever observations made by this Court is only for the limited purpose for considering the bail and this will not come in the way of learned Judge while disposing of the matter on merits."
In the circumstances, following the said judgment, in my view, this petition merits consideration and deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that:
(i) In the event of arrest or voluntary surrender of petitioners in Crime No.745/2015 registered in Kamakshipalya Police Station before the jurisdictional Police or Magistrate on or before 30.3.2017, they shall be released on bail upon their executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer;
(ii) Petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the further course of investigation and appear as and when called upon;
(iii) Petitioners shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional Police on every 1st and 3rd Sunday of each calendar month between 10 a.m. & 1 p.m till the charge sheet is filed;
(iv) Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to prosecution witness or any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or investigating officer;
(v) Petitioners shall not involve themselves in any criminal activities; and
(vi) If the petitioners violate any one of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
Petition allowed.