Shivakumar Nayak @ Shivakumar Naika A N vs State Of Karnataka

V Srishananda, J

Heard Sri. Nagendra Naik K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V. S. Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Present petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

Savithramma W/o. Late Malavaiah, house wife lodged a complaint with Channapatna Rural Police Station on 27.09.2022 which came to be registered in Crime No.259/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC for short).

Gist of the complaint averments reveal that about two years earlier to the lodging of the complaint, son of the complainant had gifted a gold chain to the complainant weighing about 33 grams and she was wearing the same. On 27.09.2022 at about 12 noon, when the complainant had been to grazing the cows in the coconut garden, a person came on a black colour pulsar motor cycle and another person was standing near the motor cycle. One of them enquired as to why she is grazing the cows in somebody else’s agricultural land and sprayed something on her face and when the complainant was trying to rescue herself, the said person snatched away the gold chain weighing 33 grams worth about Rs.1,35,000/- and both of them escaped on the motor cycle.

Based on such complaint, police registered the case against unknown persons.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in the matter on the ground that a Crime constable by name Muniraj Naik is having a sister and the petitioner had a love affair with her and in order to snap the relationship, the said Muniraju is trying to fix the petitioner in the said case.

The petitioner has approached the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara for grant of anticipatory bail which was turned down by order dated 23.12.2022 in Crl.Misc. No.1158/2022. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

Sri. Nagendra Naik K., learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition vehemently contended that admittedly, the case came to be registered against unknown person and on account of previous enmity, one Muniraj Naik, who is a Crime constable attached to the police station, is trying to fix the present petitioner in the said case and if that would happened, the petitioner would be put to untold hardship including the marriage proposal being canceled and the marriage proposal is with the sister of the said Muniraj Naik for which, other members of the family have agreed and even invitation cards are printed.

He also contended that the petitioner is not having any antecedents and he would appear before the Investigating Agency and co-operate with the Investigating Agency and sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes for grant of anticipatory bail.

In the light of the rival contentions, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously.

Admittedly, the crime came to be registered against unknown persons on 27.09.2022. Till today, no progress has taken place in the case for want of presence of the petitioner.

Whether at all, the petitioner is responsible for the alleged act or not cannot be decided by this Court at this stage by holding a mini trial. It is for the Investigating Agency to investigate the matter and file appropriate report as is contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.

Taking note of the fact that the investigation has crippled for want of the petitioner, directing the petitioner to join the investigation and to undergo limited period of custodial interrogation would meet the ends of justice. Hence, this Court passes the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Petition is allowed.

Petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Agency on 28.04.2023 at about 10.00 a.m.

Investigation Officer is at liberty to take the accused / petitioner to custody and complete the custodial investigation on the same day, before 6.00 p.m. and thereafter, enlarge the petitioner on bail, on petitioner executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with Two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the IO.

Petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency.

Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Ramanagara district without prior permission.

If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek for cancellation of this bail order.

Ordered accordingly.