Ravi vs State

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No. 6 u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 475/2010. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 6 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that summons issued by the trial court was not at all served on the petitioner-accused No. 6. The petitioner is ready to appear before the trial Court and he never absconded. The learned Counsel has produced a copy of the judgment dated 17.9.2012 passed in S.C. No. 153/2011 connected with S.C. No. 536/2012 in respect of accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and submitted that the trial court has acquitted accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. The learned Counsel further relied on the decisions in case of Premananda Sahu Vs. State of Orissa-2013 (2) Crimes 499 and Thamilendi Vs. State and Another-2008 (2) Crimes 47.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that since the petitioner absconded, split up charge sheet was filed. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

Perusal of the judgment of the trial court, it indicates that except the injured-P.W. 3, none of the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. It is observed by the trial court that even the evidence of P.W. 3 is also not worth believable and accordingly acquitted the accused persons. The apprehension of the prosecution is that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, again he will abscond and the trial proceedings against him will be hampered. Perusing the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the judgment produced in respect of the other accused persons, I am of the opinion that to secure the presence of the petitioner before the trial court, stringent conditions can be imposed and he can be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC registered in Crime No. 475/2010, subject to the following conditions:

I. The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and shall offer one solvent surety for the likesum to the concerned Magistrate Court.

II. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation, whenever called upon to do so.

III. The petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

IV. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within thirty days from the date of this order and shall execute personal bond as well as surety bond.