Navid vs State Of Karnataka

Petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.103/2019 of Aurad Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 398 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 31.08.2019 along with other accused persons. The petitioner was enlarged on bail by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge at Bidar, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.538/2019 dated 18.09.2019 subject to certain conditions.

The present petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the imposition of condition to furnish one surety from Bidar out of two solvent sureties.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Court below while enlarging the petitioner on bail has observed that the accused/petitioner has been already arrested, interrogated and produced before the Court and he is no more required for the purpose of investigation. He submits that in view of the condition now imposed to furnish a local surety, the petitioner is still languishing in the judicial custody and therefore, seeks to relax the said condition. It is also submitted that there is no bad antecedent against the petitioner herein.

The learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand submits that the accused/petitioner and two other accused were attempting to commit robbery and receiving such information when the police went to the spot they tried to run away however, they were caught red handed. He submits that the Court below has rightly imposed stringent conditions to ensure the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court. Accordingly, he seeks to reject the petition.

The fact remains that the petitioner has been enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.538/2019. The following conditions are imposed while enlarging the petitioner on bail:

"Accused/petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in Crime No.103/2019 of Aurad-B Police Station, on his executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh) with Two solvent sureties and one among shall be from proper Bidar and also cash security of Rs.10,000/- subject to following conditions:

i. Accused/petitioner shall mark his attendance before the respondent police preferably on 15th of every month between 8 am to 2 pm, till filing of final report.

ii. Accused/petitioner to appear before Investigating Officer whenever called upon and extend his fullest co-operation in investigation.

iii. Accused/petitioner shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing unless prevented by genuine cause and exempted by the Court.

iv. Accused/petitioner shall take care of himself that he shall not be involved in any crime.

In the event of breach of conditions, prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

Intimate conditions to the concerned Police."

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties. However, to furnish a local surety is not feasible since the petitioner is from Gulbarga. Therefore, he submits that the said condition may be relaxed.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2018) ACR 178 has held that conditions for grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance thereby, making grant of bail illusory. The Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph-7 of the said judgment has observed as under:

"7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory."

The learned Sessions Judge has already directed the petitioner to execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties and also imposed other conditions. In view of the same, directing the petitioner to furnish a local surety may not be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The order dated 18.09.2019 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.538/2019 by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, directing the petitioner to furnish one of the solvent sureties from proper Bidar is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall comply with all other conditions.