Namdev vs State of Karnataka

B. Sreenivas Gowda, J.—This petition is filed by accused No. 1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 56/2014 of Gogi Police Station.

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that he is innocent of the offences alleged against him and he has not done any offence much less the one alleged against him. The allegations made in the complaint and in the FIR do not constitute an offence under Section 307 of IPC at best they may fall under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Dhongrinaik Tanda Nagantagi village situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. He has movable and immovable properties which are also situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. As such, there is no apprehension that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he would go away from the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and it would be difficult to secure his presence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will abide by any conditions which would be imposed by this Court while granting him anticipatory bail.

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that overt-act alleged against the petitioner and accused No. 4- Gopal is almost similar and common in nature. Accused No. 4 has already been released on bail by the Sessions Court. He also submits that the other accused have already been released on bail. As such, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail by applying the law of parity.

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that petitioner is the main accused. He has caused injury to the complainant and his brother-Kishan by using deadly weapon and as evident from the wound certificate, the overt-act done by this petitioner is grievous in nature. He also submits that the principle of parity is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, with this, he prays for rejection of the bail petition.

It is not in dispute that there are six accused in the case. It is also not/in dispute that four of them have already granted bail by the Sessions Court. On perusal of the FIR as well as the order passed by the Sessions Court, I find that overt-act done by accused No. 4 and this petitioner is almost similar and common in nature. The only difference is that accused No. 4 caused injury to the complainant''s brother, whereas, petitioner has caused injury to both i.e., complainant and his brother. Therefore, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail by imposing certain conditions.

Hence, I pass the following:

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail for a period of thirty days from today in connection with Crime No. 56/2014 of Gogi Police Station with the following conditions:

i) In the event of his arrest by the respondent-Police within the above period, he shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a self bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one solvent surety for the likesum.

ii) Within thirty days from today, he shall surrender before the jurisdictional Court and apply for regular bail. In that event, his bail petition may be considered and disposed of in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.

iii) He shall extend all co-operation with the respondent-Police for investigating the crime.

iv) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or meddle with the investigation in any manner.

v) Without prejudice to the case of the petitioner that he has not committed the offences alleged against him, he is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- before the Sessions Court, in turn the Sessions Court is directed to release the same in favour of the complainant-victim.