P H DAYANANDA vs STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. praying the Court to modify the bail condition No.6

requesting imposed in Crl.P.4640/2016 by this Court on the reasons as mentioned in the petition; said condition is to be relaxed and the petitioner

be allowed to participate in the business of Bhavani Housing Co-operative Society, till the conclusion of trial.

Learned Spl.PP. appering on behalf of respondent/prosecution has filed the objection statement today. The same is taken on record.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned Spl.PP. appearing for the respondent-

State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has

been filed. Petitioner is an elected Secretary working in the said Society, he has every right to participate in the dayto- day business of the Society.

The prosecution cannot prevent the petitioner from participating in the business of the Society. He also brought to the notice of the Court that

petitioner wanted to visit Temple at Shabarimale, also Vaishnodevi Temple at Jammu and Kashmir and also New Delhi. Hence, submitted that

condition No.6 imposed by the Court may be relaxed.

Per contra, Sri B.S.Prasad, learned Spl.PP. opposed the petition and relaxation of the said condition submitting that petitioner is an habitual

offender having a criminal background. Considering the antecedents of the petitioner, this Court imposed the condition that he should not

participate in the business of the said Society till the conclusion of trial. If the petitioner is permitted to take part then again he will do illegal acts in

the Society, which will affect the members of the said Society adversely. Hence, submitted that relaxation of the condition, allowing the petitioner

to travel outside the State of Karnataka are not necessary and submitted to reject the petition in toto.

I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, objection statement, so also, the order passed by this Court and the conditions imposed

therein.

Looking to the condition No.vi, it is observed by this Court that ""they shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court till conclusion of the

trial, without prior permission of the said Court"". But subsequently on the application filed, the said condition came to be relaxed by the order of

this Court dated 16.03.2017 and at page No.7 of the said order, condition No.vi is modified, I have perused the same. However, learned counsel

for the petitioner submitted that the time, which is mentioned in the said order, has already been expired. Therefore, in view of these submissions,

so far as condition No.vi is concerned, petitioner/accused No.2 is permitted to travel to the Temple at Shabarimale, Vaishnodevi Temple at Jammu

and Kashmir and also New Delhi, but with the condition that before taking such travel, petitioner has to furnish the travel details and other

particulars to the concerned trial Court and after getting formal permission by the concerned Court he can travel. Hence, to that extent, condition

No.vi can be relaxed.

So far as other conditions, which have been observed by this Court by order dated 08.08.2016 passed in Crl.4640/2016 at page No.14 of its

order regarding the participation of the petitioner in the business of said Society is concerned, this Court has taken note of the antecedents and the

entire merits of the case before granting bail order and after noticing those factual aspects, this Court has observed that in addition to said

conditions, petitioner/accused No.2 shall not participate in the business of Bhavani Housing Co-operative Society till conclusion of trial of the case

registered against the accused persons.

Therefore, now looking to the averments in the complaint, petition and the objections statement filed by the other side, at this stage, I am of the

opinion that it is not necessary to modify the additional conditions at page No.14 of the order dated 08.08.2016 passed in the Crl.P.4640/2016.

Hence, petition is allowed-in-part. Condition No.vi of the order dated 08.08.2016 passed in Crl.P.4640/2016 to the extent of travel of the

petitioner/accused outside the state of Karnataka as stated above is relaxed. So far as participation in the business of the Society is concerned, as I

have already observed above, is rejected.