V.M. Vittal Kumar and N.T. Sudhakar vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioners - accused Nos. 1 & 2 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 their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 201 and 392 of IPC registered by the respondent - police in Crime No. 22/2014.

Heard the arguments of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners - accused Nos. 1 & 2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners during the course of his argument submitted that it is no doubt true that there is a complaint by the complainant against the police of Cubbon Park Police Station alleging that though she has made the complaint in respect of theft of the wooden bags containing sandal wood pieces, the police have not conducted proper investigation in respect of her complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, now the case has been registered in Crime No. 22/2014 placing the present petitioners as accused Nos. 1 & 2. Though the complaint was made by the complainant about 40 days back, now at the belated stage case has been registered. The contention of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that accused Nos. 1 & 2 are only the police constables working in the Cubbon park police Station and they are not the officers to take the decision about the investigation and how it is to be conducted. He also made the submission that the police constables have to obey the orders given by the higher authorities. He made the submission that in view of the said complaint and as the report is also submitted, the case has been registered against the petitioners and other police officials. He submitted that they are Government servants and no question of absconding from the proceedings. Counsel also made the submission that looking to the materials on record, the ingredients of Section 392 are also not attracted and offences are triable by the Magistrate Court and hence by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be admitted to bail.

As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that the statement of witnesses and also averments of the complaint made by the complainant clearly goes to show the involvement of the present petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences and they are police constables. The materials prima-facie goes to show that there is a direction of duty by the present petitioners in conducting the proper investigation in respect of the complaint made before them. Hence, submitted that petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Perusing the materials on record firstly there is a delay of nearly 40 days in registering the complaint and alleged offences are all triable by the Magistrate Court and they are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. As it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, that petitioners are working as Police constables and there are Officers in-charge to the police Station. It is their contention that they are innocent and not involved in the commission of the alleged offences. They have also undertaken in their petition that they are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. Since they are working as police constables their presence can be secured either before the Investigating Officer or before the concerned Court. Therefore, looking to the nature of the offences alleged, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be admitted to bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent - police are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 201 and 392 of IPC registered by the respondent - police in Crime No. 22/2014, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;

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

(iii) The petitioners shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for;

(iv) The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond and also the surety bond.