Sri C.P. Somashekhar vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent - P.S. to release him on bail in the event of his arrest for the offence punishable u/s 380 of I.P.C. registered in the respondent-police station Crime No. 90/2013.

The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 3.11.2013 at about 12.15 noon one Manjunatha S/o. Subbaiah, working as Assistant Chief Director, Hydelburge Cement Factory, Ammasandra, Tumkur District appeared before the Station House In-charge Officer and made a complaint alleging that the petitioner herein was trying to steal 20 H.RCS Cooler Plates from the Core Division of the factory on 3.11.2013 at about 5.30 a.m. On seeing the security guard leaving a two wheeler motor cycle Hero Honda Splendor bearing Regn. No. KA-44-E-2304, some one ran away from the factory compound. On inspection of the said vehicle, the complainant recovered voters ID from the petrol tank of the said vehicle, which reveals the name of the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered against present petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. It is the contention of the petitioner that the two wheeler vehicle, which said to have been seized, is not at all pertaining to the petitioner. The petitioner is an agriculturist having 6 acres of landed property. He is innocent and is not at all involved in the alleged incident. He is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument made a statement that the ID card is of the petitioner himself. It is falsely stated by the prosecution that the ID card was recovered from the two wheeler vehicle and on the basis of which, the police registered the case against the petitioner. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the matter is still under investigation. The offence alleged is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life and triable before the Court of Magistrate. The apprehension of the prosecution that if anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. To secure the presence of the petitioner for the trial of the case, stringent conditions can be imposed, which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Insofar as apprehension of the arrest of petitioner at the hands of the respondents police is concerned, he has made out a case. Therefore, looking to all the materials on record, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.

Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offence punishable u/s 380 of I.P.C. registered in the respondent-police in Crime No. 90/2013 subject to the following conditions:-

(a) The petitioner has to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and furnish a solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;

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

(c) The petitioner shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for;

(d) The petitioner has to mark his attendance before the respondent-police on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. till the completion of the investigation; and

(e) The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order to execute the personal bond and surety bond.