Karnataka High Court
Mahantesh S/O Devindrappa Patil vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2022
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201224/2022
c/w
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201396/2022
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.201224/2022
BETWEEN:
MAHANTESH S/O DEVINDRAPPA PATIL
AGE: 52 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE/DRIVER
R/O: SONNA VILLAGE
TQ: AFZALPUR DIST: KALABURAGI-585 107. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANDESH CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ASHOK MULAGE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CHOWK POLICE STATION,
KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KIRAN S. JAWALI, SPP AND
SRI. PRAKASH A. YELI, ADDL. SPP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ORDER THE
ENLARGEMENT OF THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN RELATION TO
THE CASE IN CRIME NO.48/2022 REGISTERED AT CHOWK
POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI, FOR THE OFFENCES THAT ARE
MADE PENAL UNDER SECTIONS 109, 114, 119, 120-B, 201,
202, 204, 212, 409, 411, 420, 465, 468 AND 471 READ WITH
SECTIONS 34, 36, 37 AND 149 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL JMFC, KALABURAGI
IN C.C.NO.14774/2022 AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT TO IMPOSE,
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201396/2022
BETWEEN:
R.D. PATIL @ RUDRAGOUDA S/O DEVINDRAPPA PATIL
AGE: 38 YEARS OCC: CONTRACTOR
R/O: H.NO.42 HIG 1ST E/W BIDDAPUR
OLD AIRPORT LAND, AKKAMAHADEVI COLONY,
KALABURAGI-585 107.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANDESH CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ASHOK MULAGE, ADVOCATE)
3
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CHOWK POLICE STATION,
KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KIRAN S. JAWALI, SPP AND
SRI. PRAKASH A. YELI, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED NO.14 ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.48/2022 REGISTERED AT CHOWK POLICE
STATION, KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCES THAT ARE MADE
PENAL UNDER SECTIONS 109, 114, 119, 120-B, 201, 202, 204,
212, 409, 411, 420, 465, 468 AND 471 READ WITH SECTIONS
34, 36, 37 AND 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL JMFC, KALABURAGI IN
C.C.NO.14774/2022, AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT TO IMPOSE,
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
Criminal Petition No.201224/2022 is preferred by accused No.13 and Criminal Petition No.201396/2022 is preferred by accused No.14, to enlarge them on bail in Crime No.48/2022 of Chowk Police Station, Kalaburagi City, registered for offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 465, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
02. The investigation is completed and charge- sheet has been filed against accused Nos.No.1 to 34 for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 114, 119, 120(B), 201, 202, 204, 212, 409, 411, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Sections 34, 36, 37 and 149 of IPC.
03. The aforementioned case is registered on a complaint lodged by the police inspector, FIU Division (CID), Bengaluru on 09.04.2022 against one Veeresh and others.
04. It is alleged that in pursuance to the notification dated 21.01.2021 issued for appointment of 5 545 post of Sub-Inspectors, the Karnataka Police Department conducted examination for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors and in the said examination some candidates were successful in passing the examination by indulging in malpractices, due to which, some of the meritorious candidates lost the opportunity of being appointed as Sub-Inspectors.
05. As per prosecution, on 03.10.2021 the examination was conducted in Jnyana Jyothi English Medium Primary School, Kalaburagi, run by its President - accused No.8 and his wife - accused No.18, the Secretary of the School. It is alleged that all the accused colluded with each other and as per the conspiracy entered, the candidates who were willing to give money were instructed to fill only those answers they knew, in the OMR sheets and remaining answers in the OMR sheets of those candidates who appeared for the examination were filled after the examination were conducted and at the time of sending OMR sheets to the concerned department. It is 6 also alleged that the candidates were given blue tooth devices to help them write the examination.
06. Petitioner - Accused No.13 is the President of Jnyana Bharati Educational Society. He is the elder brother of petitioner - accused Nos.14. It is alleged that accused No.9 who is a candidate requested accused No.14 to help him in the PSI selection, for which accused No.14 demanded payment of Rs.40,00,000/-, which was settled for Rs.30,00,000/-. As per instructions of accused No.14, accused No.13 collected an advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from accused No.9 and provided blue tooth device to help the said candidate in the PSI examination held on 03.10.2021.
07. It is further alleged, accused No.12, a candidate for the post of PSI came in contact with accused No.14 through accused No.34 and sought for help and accused No.14 agreed to help him subject to payment of Rs.70,00,000/- which was settled for Rs.42,00,000/- and at his request accused No.12 provided two mobile phones 7 with two SIM cards along with cash. Accused No.14 provided blue tooth device to the said candidate and helped him for passing the PSI examination.
08. Similarly, accused No.14 agreed to help accused No.16 subject to payment of Rs.30,00,000/- and asked him to provide a mobile phone and helped him to pass in the examination. Thus, accused No.14 having conspired with accused Nos.26, 27 and 29, after receiving huge amount, got accused Nos.9, 12 and 16 selected illegally in the PSI examination by providing blue tooth devices to the said candidates.
09. It is also alleged that accused No.14 hatched a conspiracy with accused No.28 and as per their plan, accused No.28 contacted accused Nos.24 and 26, Principal of Jnyana Jyoti English Medium Primary School and extorted a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from them.
10. It is contended by the learned State Public Prosecutor that the accused persons have conspired with 8 each other and after receiving huge amount from the candidates, helped them to pass PSI examination illegally by providing blue tooth devices and filling up the OMR sheets and thus, they have spoiled the future of genuine candidates. He contends that the petitioners are involved in the commission of serious offence and prosecution has collected sufficient materials about their complicity. Hence, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and its impact on the society at large, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief of bail. It is also contended that accused No.14 is an influential person and investigation agency after thorough investigation has submitted the charge-sheet after collecting sufficient material against the petitioners and other accused persons, which itself is sufficient to deny the relief of bail. It is contended that the petitioners have not made out any exceptional grounds to enlarge them on bail.
11. Apart from the merits of the case, one of the main grounds urged by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners is that FIR having been registered for offences 9 which are punishable for less than 07 years, there is no compliance of Section 41 and 41A of Cr.P.C. The learned Senior Counsel has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Misc. Application No.1849/2021 in SLP. (Crl) No.5191/2021 dated 11.07.2022. Attention of the Court is drawn to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court for grant of bail, for the benefit of the Courts, which are as under :-
Categories/Types of Offences :-
A. Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in category B and D. B. Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years.
C. Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (S.37), PMLA (S.45), UAPA (S.43D(5), Companies Act, 212 (6), etc., D. Economic Offences not covered by Special Acts.10
12. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that when a police officer is satisfied that an accused has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term, which is less than 07 years or which may extend to 07 years and arrest of that person is necessary, he has to record the reasons and a notice has to be issued and if such person complies with the notice, he shall not be arrested, unless the reasons are recorded for such arrest. He contends that in the case on hand, no such procedure has been followed. Attention of the Court is also drawn to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and other judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
13. The learned S.P.P. has filed a memo dated 07.12.2022 enclosing a typed copy of the contents of the Case Diary dated 24.04.2022 on which date accused No.14 was arrested, to contend that the reasons are mentioned in the Case Diary for not issuing notice under Section 41A 11 of Cr.P.C, as there was a possibility of accused causing disappearance or tampering with the prosecution evidence and not cooperating with the investigation.
14. As per Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. a police officer shall record his reasons in writing while making a arrest. In Arnesh Kumar (Supra) at Para No.10, the Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasised that the practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or most of the reasons contained in Section 41 of Cr.P.C. for effecting arrest be discouraged and discontinued and certain directions are given to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically and it is made clear that the said directions shall apply not only to the accused under Section 498-A of IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but also in such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than 07 years or which may extend to 07 years, whether with or without fine. One of the directions issued 12 is that all the police officer be provided with a check-list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii).
15. At Para No.23 in Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) it is held that the consequences of non-compliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offence. Resultantly, while considering the application for enlargement on bail, courts will have to satisfy themselves on the due compliance of this provision. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused to a grant of bail. Para Nos.22 and 23 extracted hereunder:-
"22. This provision mandates the police officer to record his reasons in writing while making the arrest. Thus, a police officer is duty-bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing. Similarly, the police officer shall record reasons when he/she chooses not to arrest. There is no requirement of the aforesaid procedure when the offence alleged is more than seven years, among other reasons.13
23. The consequences of non-compliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offence. Resultantly, while considering the application for enlargement on bail, courts will have to satisfy themselves on the due compliance of this provision. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused to a grant of bail."
16. Placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has contended that denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. A person is not liable to arrest merely on a suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided and notice should be issued to participate in the investigation.
17. In Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon'ble 14 Apex Court has set-out certain parameters for consideration of bail and it is held that gravity alone cannot be the decisive ground to deny bail and competing factors to be balanced by Court while exercising its discretion. Para Nos.21 to 23 are extracted hereunder:-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that 15 some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him in a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."16
18. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to a case in Moti Ram vs. State of M.P. reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47, which reads as under:-
"14. The consequences of pretrial detention are grave. Defendants presumed innocent are subjected to the psychological and physical deprivation of jail life, usually under more onerous conditions than are imposed on convicted defendants. The jailed defendant loses his job if he has one and is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. Equally important, the burden of his detention frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family."
19. The learned SPP has vehemently contended that the allegations against the accused persons are very serious which can be equated to an economic offence of great magnitude, though the offences alleged are punishable up to 07 yeas and not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Relying on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar and another vs. 17 Amit Kumar Alias Bachcha Rai reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751, he contends that there is no straight jacket formula for considering grant of bail to the accused and it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. He has also relied on Para No.13 of the said judgment which is extracted hereunder:-
"13. We are also conscious that if undeserving candidates are allowed to top exams by corrupt means, not only will the society be deprived of deserving candidates, but it will be unfair for those students who have honestly worked hard for one whole year and are ultimately disentitled to a good rank by fraudulent practices prevalent in those examinations. It is well settled that socio- economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. Usually socio-economic offence has deep-rooted conspiracies affecting the moral fibre of the society and causing irreparable harm, needs to be considered seriously."18
20. The learned SPP has therefore, contended that socio-economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.
21. The learned SPP would also rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gulabrao Baburao Deokar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 190 and in Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466.
22. In the above decisions the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered grant of bail in economic offences having serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole, affecting fibre economic structure. It is held that economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole, wherein more serious allegations are made out in respect of offences which are punishable for more than 07 years.
19
23. It is well settled that at the time of considering application for bail, the Court must take into account certain factors such as existence of prima-facie case against the accused, the gravity of the allegations, position and status of the accused, likelihood of accused fleeing from justice and repeating offences and possibility of tampering with witnesses as well as criminal antecedents of accused. It is also well settled that Courts must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail.
24. In the Satender Kumar Antil (Supra), referring to cases pertaining to economic offences, it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court at Para No.66 as under:-
"66. What is left for us now to discuss are the economic offences. The question for consideration is whether it should be treated as a class of its own or otherwise. This issue has already been dealt with by this Court in the case of P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of 20 Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, after taking note of the earlier decisions governing the field. The gravity of the offence, the object of the Special Act, and the attending circumstances are a few of the factors to be taken note of, along with the period of sentence. After all, an economic offence cannot be classified as such, as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the Court to categorise all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis."
25. The learned SPP has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Naveen Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 809, to contend that seriousness of offence is one of the relevant consideration while considering grant of bail and merely because the charge-sheet has been filed itself is not a ground to release the accused on bail. In the said case, the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged are more than 07 years and also punishable with imprisonment for 21 life. The allegations against the accused are of tampering or manipulating the court records etc., and he has taken benefit of such forged/manipulated court order in another case.
26. In State of Orissa vs. Mahimananda Mishra reported in (2018) 10 SCC 516 relied upon by the learned SPP, the Hon'ble Apex Court has set-aside the order granting of bail to the accused observing that the High Court was not justified in going into the evidence on record in such depth which amounts to ascertaining the probability of the conviction of the accused and the High Court has failed to appreciate several crucial factors. It was a case wherein the investigation was pending for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120(B) of IPC and explosive Substances Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the serious nature of allegations and since investigation was not yet completed, set-aside the order granting bail to the accused observing that there is a 22 reasonable apprehension for the prosecution that accused would tamper or influence the investigation.
27. The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at trial by reasonable amount of bail. It is neither punitive nor preventative. It is held in Sanjay Chandra (Supra) that 'any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. The refusal of bail is restriction on the personal liberty of the individual carried out under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.' It is a case of economic offence, wherein, considering the nature of allegations and taking into consideration the principles laid down for grant of bail in various judgments, in the said case, bail was granted. Para No.46 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-
23
"46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of he country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI."
28. In Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners it is held that 'A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with 24 regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. Further, at Para No.6, it is observed that, 'however, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.' 25
29. In P. Chidambaram vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2020) 13 SCC 337, relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners, tripod test for grant or refusal bail to the accused is discussed by the Apex Court which are (i) flight risk, (ii) tampering with evidence and (iii) influencing witnesses.
30. Mere allegation of fleeing from justice, tampering of evidence or influencing the witnesses, itself is not a ground for rejection of a bail petition. If any such material is brought on record, certainly the prosecution can seek for cancellation of bail granted to the accused by placing material before the Court.
31. The learned Senior Counsel for petitioners has also relied on Para No.70 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427, which is extracted hereunder:- 26
"70. More than four decades ago, in a celebrated judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand Krishna Iyer(1). J, pithily reminded us that the basic rule of our criminal justice system is "bail, not jail". The High Courts and courts in the district judiciary of India must enforce this principle in practice, and not forego that duty, leaving this Court to intervene at all times. We must in particular also emphasise the role of the district judiciary, which provides the first point of interface to the citizen. Our district judiciary has wrongly referred to as the "subordinate judiciary". It may be subordinate in hierarchy but it is not subordinate in terms of its importance in the lives of citizens or in terms of the duty to render justice to them. High Courts get burdened when courts of first instance decline to grant anticipatory bail or bail in deserving cases. This continues in the Supreme Court as well, when High Courts do not grant bail or anticipatory bail in cases falling within the parameters of the law. The consequence for those who suffer incarceration are serious.
Common citizens without the means or resources to move the High Courts or this 27 Court languish as undertrials. Courts must be alive to the situation as it prevails on the ground - in the jails and police stations where human dignity has no protector. As Judges, we would do well to remind ourselves that it is through the instrumentally of bail that out criminal justice system's primordial interest in preserving the presumption of innocence finds its most eloquent expression. The remedy of bail is the "solemn expression of the humaneness of the justice system. Tasked as we are with the primary responsibility of preserving the liberty of all citizens, we cannot countenance an approach that has the consequence of applying this basic rule in an inverted form. We have given expression to our anguish in a case where a citizen has approached this Court. We have done so in order to reiterate principles which must govern countless other faces whose voices should not go unheard."
32. It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2005) 5 SCC 28 294, that the duty of the Court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. Further, the findings recorded by the Court while granting or refusing bail undoubtedly would be tentative in nature, which may not have any bearing on the merit of the case and the trial court would, thus, be free to decide the case on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial, without in any manner being prejudiced thereby.
33. The learned Senior Counsel for petitioners has contended that even for argument sake, the case on hand cannot be considered as an economic offence of great magnitude. He has also contended that the allegations are based on confessional statements of the accused, which has no evidentiary value. Some of the other accused are already enlarged on bail and further incarceration of the petitioners in custody would amount to pretrial conviction. 29
34. It is not in dispute that the case on hand is registered for offences which are punishable upto 07 years. Accused No.13 was arrested on 22.04.2022 and accused No.14 on 24.04.2022. Charge-sheet has been filed. In Crime No.48/2022 of Chowk Police Station, accused Nos.8, 15, 17, 21, 22 and 23 are already enlarged on bail. Offences alleged in the charge-sheet against accused No.13 are under Sections 109, 120(B), 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 IPC and against accused No.14 are under Sections 109, 120(B), 201, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioners are in judicial custody from the date of their arrest. It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioners are required for further interrogation.
35. The learned SPP contends that against some of the accused, now offences under Section 7 and 7A of the P.C. Act are invoked. He submits that now the case is transferred to the Special Court and pending in Special Case No.7/2022 and therefore, contends that the petitioners are not entitle for bail.
30
36. The above contention of the learned SPP cannot be accepted for declining the relief of bail to the petitioners. Transfer of case to the Special Court will not disentitle the petitioners for their release on bail, if they are entitle to the relief. It is not the case of prosecution that Section 7 and 7A of P.C. Act are invoked against these petitioners. A direction can be issued to the petitioners to appear before the jurisdictional Court dealing with the matter, for executing the bond, furnishing sureties and for compliance of other conditions.
37. Considering the above facts and circumstances and in the light of the discussion made supra, the petitioners can be enlarged on bail by imposing stringent conditions. Accordingly, the following;
ORDER Both the petitions are allowed.
The petitioners - accused No.13 and 14 shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.48/2022 of Chowk Police Station, Kalaburagi City, subject to following conditions :- 31
I. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond each in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
II. They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.
III. They shall furnish proof of their residential address and their contact number and shall inform the I.O./Court if there is any change in the address or contact number.
IV. They shall surrender their passport, if any, before the Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in case they are not holding the passport, they shall file their affidavits, before the Court, stating so. V. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the learned Trial Judge, till disposal of the case or until further orders.
32VI. They shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing, without fail.
VII. They shall make available for the purpose of further investigation, if any.
VIII. They shall not indulge in any criminal activities.
If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ