Suresh vs State Of Karnataka

Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by accused seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime

No.136/2020 of H.D.Kote Police Station, Mysuru District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 170, 506 of IPC.

The facts leading to this petition are that on the complaint filed by Sri.Manjunath R., Tahasildar, Taluka Executive Magistrate, H.D.Kote and in-

charge of Saragur Taluk, the Police have registered the case. The allegations are that the petitioner-accused by name Sri.Suresh has been making

calls from his mobile No.7829472126 to the mobile of the complainant impersonating himself as the Deputy Secretary of the Revenue Department,

Bengaluru, and he was directing the complainant to help the person called Nagaraju. Thereby, he was causing obstruction to discharge official duties

by the complainant.

After registering the case the police officials started making attempts to arrest the petitioner. Apprehending the arrest and detention, the petitioner

has approached the sessions Court, but the bail application has been rejected.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the prosecution records

available at this stage.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the allegations made in the complaint are false and baseless. Petitioner, being the President of

Bhovi Community, had gone to the office of Tahasildar in connection with some other work, but he has been falsely implicated in this case.

Per contra, learned HCGP submitted that there are specific allegations that the petitioner impersonated himself as Deputy Secretary of the

Revenue Department and has tried to cause threat and obstruction in discharge of official duty by the complainant. There are no grounds to hold that

the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.

The complaint averments disclose that the petitioner had made a mobile call on 04.06.2020 but the complaint is filed on 07.06.2020. During the

course of arguments, it is submitted that the petitioner, being the President of Bhovi Community, had gone to the office of Tahasildar to explain about

the problems of his community and he has not made mobile calls to the complainant.

The grounds stated in the bail petition and submission of learned counsel for the petitioner goes to prove the apprehension of the petitioner regarding

his arrest and detention. The offences alleged are not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment. It is submitted that petitioner is residing

at the address shown in the cause title and the said fact has not been denied or disputed by the prosecution. The main objection of the prosecution is

that in the event of granting bail, the petitioner is likely to cause threat to the complainant and interfere with the investigation and the said objection can

be set right by imposing stringent conditions.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner

subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, this Court proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Criminal petition is allowed.

Consequently, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.136/2020 of H.D.Kote Police

Station, Mysuru District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 170, 506 of IPC, subject to following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On appearance of

petitioner, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate and release him on bail;

ii. The petitioner shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of

the Investigating Officer;

iii. The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation, and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

iv. The petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses; and

v. The petitioner shall mark his attendance in respondent-H.D.Kote Police Station, Mysuru District, on 1st of every calendar month until submission of

the final report.