Sri Ravi vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No. 3 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 his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 427, 143, 144, 147, 148, 435, 436, 447, 448, 441 read with Section 149 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station in Crime No. 14/2014.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No. 3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that even according to the allegations made by the prosecution in the complaint that there was a mob of 20-30 persons said to have been involved in the commission of alleged offence and they have caused damages to the school building, furniture, window glasses, etc., hence counsel made the submission that at this stage, it cannot be ascertained that whether present petitioner was involved in the commission of the alleged offences or not. He also made the submission that other accused person/accused No. 11, who alleged to have caught red handed on the spot, has been granted bail by the order of this Court, so also accused Nos. 2 and 7 were also released on bail by the order of this Court, hence on the ground of parity the present petitioner/accused No. 3 is also entitled to be granted with bail. The counsel made the submission that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be admitted to bail.

As against this, learned H.C.G.P. during the course of his arguments submitted that in the complaint, name of the present petitioner is mentioned as one of the person who was present and participated the commission of alleged offence. Hence, he submitted that this itself is sufficient to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of alleged offences and the offence alleged u/s 436 of IPC is a serious offence. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, F.I.R., complaint and other materials produced along with petition, so also the order passed by the Lower Court. It is no doubt true that perusing the averments made in the complaint the name of the present petitioner is also mentioned that he was present along with other accused persons, but there is an allegation that one Rajanna and about 20 to 30 persons were there in front of the school. Therefore, when a mob was there, at this stage, it is difficult to accept that the persons who have actually participated and the opportunity for the complainant to observe the same and to mention the names of some of the persons in the complaint, not only that, accused Nos. 2, 7 and 11, against whom also there are allegations made in the complaint, have been already granted bail by the order of this Court and while granting bail to these accused persons, this Court has considered in detail about the entire merits of the case and ultimately allowed the petition. When the present petitioner is also standing on the same footing, as that of other accused persons, who are already granted bail on the ground of parity, present petitioner is also entitled to be granted with bail. Looking to the averments made in the petition, the petitioner has contended that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has also undertaken in the petition that he is not at all involved in the commission of the alleged offence and he is ready to abide by conditions to be imposed by this Court. Regarding his apprehension of arrest at the hands of respondent - police and looking to the materials placed before the Court, petitioner has made out a case. Therefore, petition is allowed. Respondent - police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 143, 144, 147, 148, 435, 436, 447, 448, 441 read with Section 149 of IPC, registered in respondent -police station in Crime No. 14/2014, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, whenever called for.

iv. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of copy of this order and to execute the personal bond and also the surety bond.