Karnataka High Court
Devili Bai vs State Of Karnataka on 21 December, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8030/2018
BETWEEN:
DEVILI BAI
W/O KARISHNA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT SHAGADADU VILLAGE
AT POST, BUKKAPATANA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572129.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SIRA P.S., REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP)
****
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN CR.NO.361/2018
OF SIRA POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 379 OF IPC.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.361/2018 registered at Sira Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
3. The FIR is registered on the basis of the complaint / report of Police Sub-Inspector of Sira Police Station. The allegations are that on 25.09.2018 in the morning at about 11.00 a.m., the PSI received a credible information about theft and illegal transportation of sand. As such he went to the spot near Huildore - Sakshihalli Gate along with his staff. One Tractor and Trailer carrying sand was found at the spot. By looking 3 at the police officials, the driver of the Tractor and Trailer fled away from the spot. The said vehicle bearing registration No.KA-40/T-4948/49 was seized in presence of panchas and mahazar was done. The petitioner being the owner of the tractor has committed theft of sand and she was illegally transporting sand without licence or permit, thereby she has committed offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police have registered a false case against the petitioner. The vehicle parked near Huildore - Sakshihalli Gate was seized by the police even though vehicle was not used for carrying sand. The offence alleged is not punishable for death or life imprisonment. The police officials are making frequent visits to the house of the petitioner. In the event of grant of anticipatory bail, the petitioner undertakes to abide by the conditions that may be imposed.
4
5. Learned SPP orally resisted the bail application and submitted that the petitioner was involved in committing theft of sand and illegal transportation, as such, the police have seized the vehicle along with sand and there are no valid grounds for grant of bail.
6. As could be seen from the records, the vehicle was found at the spot. It is submitted that, the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle. The police have seized the vehicle and other material found in the Tractor. Considering the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner, in my view, the same are required to be substantiated only by production of documentary evidence for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary.
7. In a decision reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of 5 Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration several factors and parameters while dealing with anticipatory bail and has observed as under:
"112. (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused.
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant."
8. Generally, arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6
9. The submissions of the counsel and the records produced goes to prove the apprehension of the petitioner regarding arrest and detention. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and on her appearance, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate and enlarge her on bail subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties for 7 the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;
(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when
required;
(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation;
(iv) The petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses;
(v) In the event of registration of any other criminal case in respect of commission of offence by using the same vehicle, the present bail order shall stand cancelled; and
(vi) If the petitioner is found to have violated any of the bail conditions, the 8 present bail order shall stand automatically cancelled.
SD/-
JUDGE SJ