Radhika and Others vs State

R.B. Budihal, J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioners - accused u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent - police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 420 of IPC registered by the respondent - police in Crime No. 19/2014.

Looking to the allegations made m the complaint it is alleged that when the said Rangaswamy was going to Mysore on his business, as there was no security in his house, he kept some money in the house of one Nagendra, who is none other than the cousin brother of the complainant - Rangaswamy. On returning from Mysore, he went to the house of Nagendra to take back the money kept by him. But the Nagendra told him that it has been stolen by somebody. The said Rangaswamy went to the Rajagopal Nagar Police Station and lodged a complaint, even though his wife, his mother-in-law and his brothers-in-law forced him not to lodge the complaint with the police for the loss of money. It is further alleged in his complaint that in return to the complaint lodged by him, his wife, his mother-in-law and his brother-in-law lodged the complaint with the very said police for the alleged offences under Sections 498A and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that his wife, his mother-in-law has stolen a cash of Rs. 15 lakhs, S.B.I.''s cheque book, two cheque books of Chamarajnagar Co-operative Bank and one cheque book issued by Axis Bank. It is further alleged that the petitioners have stolen two silver plates, two silver glasses, site documents and 125 grams of gold. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered for the alleged offences against the petitioners.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his argument submitted that though it is alleged that the said incident has taken place on the alleged date, but the complaint has been lodged after lapse of 2 1/2 months. Learned counsel made the submission that there is no proper or satisfactory explanation about the said delay and why the complaint was not lodged at the earliest point of time, even if really the alleged offences were committed. Learned counsel further made the submission that accused No 3 who is the police constable he was on duty at some other place and even then false implication has been made by making false allegations in the complaint that he was also involved in the commission of the alleged offences. Hence, learned counsel made the submission that even looking to the materials placed on record, it goes to show that accused No. 3 was at some other place. Hence, there is a false implication. Counsel made the submission that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that though the money was kept in the house of Nagendra, as the complainant felt that there is no security in his house for keeping the huge amount. But after coming back from Mysore when it was asked, it was told by Nagendra that somebody has stolen the amount. Learned Government Pleader further made the submission that for the commission of the alleged offences by the petitioners, prosecution has placed the prima-facie material and the matter is still under investigation and petitioners are not at all available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

I have perused the materials placed on record and looking to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint lodged in this case admittedly, is a belated complaint and it has to be satisfactorily explained by the complainant and his other witnesses during the course of trial. Looking to the materials produced along with this petition, they also goes to show and as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused No. 3 was at some other place at the time and date of alleged offences. This also probably the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The offences alleged under Sections 379 and 420 of IPC are all triable by the Magistrate Court and they are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is the contention and the also apprehension of the prosecution that the present petitioners are not at all available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation. For this apprehension and to secure the presence of the petitioners before the Investigating Officer and also concerned Court, stringent conditions can be imposed which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent - police are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 420 of IPC registered by the respondent - police in Crime No. 19/2014, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;

(ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) The petitioners shall make them selves available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for; and

(iv) The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond and also the surety bond.