AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by petitioners-accused nos. 1, 2 and 6 u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release them on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 308/2013 for the offence punishable u/s 365 read with 34 of the IPC, which was initially registered in Crime No. 10/13 of Rajanukunte police station and subsequently transferred to the jurisdictional police station.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
The learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments submitted that the petitioners have not involved in the alleged crime and they have been falsely implicated. He submitted that even according to the prosecution papers, Narayanappa borrowed loan from the petitioners and because of his failure of repayment of the loan in time, they have kidnapped him. He further submitted that in respect of repayment of the loan, taking undue advantage of the same, a false complaint has been filed against the present petitioners and hence by imposing any reasonable conditions they may be admitted to bail.
As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of arguments submitted that the investigating officer has collected the material, which goes to show the involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged crime. He submitted that the investigation is still under progress and at this stage, the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail.
Perused the averments made in the FIR, bail petition and other material placed on record. Looking into the material placed on record, it is the case of the prosecution that after the alleged incident, the investigating officer has recorded the voluntary statement of Narayanappa, who is said to have been kidnapped. The said Narayanappa in his statement has stated that he has borrowed the amount for the purpose of gambling and when he has not repaid the amount, the petitioners contacted him on phone and told him to come to a particular place and from there they have kidnapped him. Section 365 of the IPC is not exclusively punishable with death or'' imprisonment for life and it is triable by the Magistrate Court. As the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that could be imposed by this Court, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 308/2013 of Doddaballapur Police Station for the alleged offences punishable u/s 365 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to following conditions:
i) Each of the petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii) Petitioners have to make themselves available before the investigating officer for investigation whenever called for.
iv) Petitioners shall give attendance before the respondent-police station on every Sunday between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. till the completion of the investigation.
v) Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to execute the personal bond and surety bond.