P.S. Srinivasan vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No. 2 u/s 438 of Cr. P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 471 and 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 298/2013.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 2 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that accused No. 1 has been already admitted to bail by the order of this Court; there is a delay of 9 months in lodging the complaint. Petitioner has filed M.C. case before the Family Court against the sister of the complainant and because of that reason the complainant has filed the complaint making false allegations against the present petitioner and falsely implicated him in the case. Hence, he has submitted that by imposing any reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to bail.

As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that matter is still under investigation. The investigating officer has to record the statement of some more witnesses and at this stage, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail. Hence, he submitted to reject the petition.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

As it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed M.C. No. 1144/2012 before the Principal Family Judge, Bangalore u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act against one Anupama and it is stated in the instant petition at paragraph No. 6 about the filing of the said petition, it prima facie shows the reason for filing such a complaint by the complainant. Even this Court has considered the merits of the case'' while considering the bail application of accused No. 1 wherein accused No. 1 has been granted with bail. Therefore, even on the ground of parity, petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Petitioner has contended in the bail petition that he has been falsely implicated in the case because he has filed the M.C. case against the sister of the complainant. Looking to these materials on record, I am of the opinion that it is fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner-accused No. 2.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioner-accused No. 2 on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 471 and 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in Crime No. 298/2013, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner-accused No. 2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

(ii) Petitioner shall make himself available before the investigating officer for interrogation, whenever called for.

(iii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

(iv) Petitioner shall give attendance before the Respondent-police station on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. till the completion of investigation.

(v) Petitioner shall appear before the concerned trial Court within thirty days from the date of this order and shall execute personal bond as well as surety bond.