Karnataka High Court
S R Hrishikesh Prabhu vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2008
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT 8A:a:(:A:5{>sarE%r*% .
DATED 'ms THE 10*" DAY or ocroezsajzcsréi _:"
35509.5 a _ é
we 1~iC>N'BLE MR. JUSTICE A,i~£..4__.VE£4VUC%€3PALAv:§§§§'\{t}A'_i'3 3
CRIMINAL P€nnofi;r$ro.445§/2698:
SETWEEN:
.S.R. Hrishikesh Prabhu, .,
S/e Sri. S.G. Rajagopaiei Praizhu,
Aga: 27 years,s"R/"%::t-Fiatiwafi; "
Orchid '£3'BiocK,'Parar'r¥apnt,~..,_ = ' '
Air Port ~-- white; F§ve!d"'i2ca"€¥}.'r' t
BANGALW-{U
~ . ?etitione:'
(By Sri.
AND:_._ V ' A
* am pr K$rh"at'a i<a
. 'By '!'t1s;e.Station House Office,
whste-fined Poiéce Station,
V ._ Waite' F§eld;;8anga£ore.
_ 2. The Sv--'i:'a'i:e"6f Gujarat,
By thesttation House Officer,
. Mahi£a*'Pol¥ce Station,
"~f_"' VAha'medabad.
Respondents
f_'VV{a3:;Sri. Hanumantharaya, for R1) This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.?.C., praying to release the petitioner on bait in the Bangalore, dismissed it. Apprehending that, arrested in the said case for having com:rnitte:di""
offences that are non haiiabie ancithate ihelis has not committed the offences 'iaga'i'n'§§t. has filed this petition to d§re§,t""~that,'V'in._.thefeuen't""of' his "
arrest in Crime hio.54,.,of zoosieubar 'M-a_hiia "Pca:ice¢f[tat:on, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, of the first information iodgerJ_ 'eaiiughter of Sri. Ramachandra raoghe _ on baii.
H 9 Bhagavan, learned counsel for the A;5et§iioner..éa'nti>:$ri:;"Fianumantharayappa, iearned HCGFf~ forA.1s*"'4£e.apo'n.oen?.
Bhagavan, by taking me through the petition .a'n%.--iaj*1_the Anhexures to it submitted that, in the jfactsfl and 'Circumstances of the case the petitioner is _"g_eiititi'ed the reiief sought in the petition and that the «iifietitioher wilt aiso abide by any of the terms and "*4.:oonditions. Learned counsei piaced reliance on the A decisions of this Court in the case of D'.'L.R. NAIDU VS. STATE or KARNATAKA, reported in 1934 ci2i;;'L;j;imagistrateo_ contend that, a person a;)prehenciihg arre'si;,- h.ai¥'r in the High Court or Sessions :_-Coiurt.._.'withfh"V[j'wh'e$e jurisdiction he resides e\:en'th_oughr.th'e Vre3spect:* of which the arrest is ap§'re.h:enVciee__ oirftside the iurisdiction ofthe Co£irtL':«--' it i A V
4. i=>er 4 iian~t;h1entiee'rayappa, learned HCGP for that, the petitioner has toseek"'re£':ef:;;r3_ has }'urisdiction over Mahi¥e1.._PoiiceV.V§tatioh,fthrtfiedahad and cannot maintain the petition «fo*r4__a::tVicVi"pa.tery before this Court. mvmeticaiseior nR.L.mwi:>u (supra), the facts e. petitioner was a medicai practitioner, reeéciingv.ini::~.§Sangaiore City, had flied a petition under VH,._"r.,Sectior:-@138 of Cr.P.C.,1973 requesting the Court to A"ere¥ee"se him on anticipatory bail apprehending that, V' Ceénnanore Town police in Keraia State having registered a case with their Crime No.185/3983 against him for an offence under Section 420 19C, were iikeiy to arrest him & and therefore he be reieased on anticipatory i3ai_|__. A preliminary objection was raised to consicier:"««.._ithe petitioner's ciaim on merits, contending has no jurisdiction over Canne_nore_ po«ii'ce""--a_i;.d"'he.;iceV cannot grant anticipatory bali arid tiiativ'petit§on_i"--cent oniy be considered by the jairisdictionai seseivot-i«ei'£o.i:--rt or the High Court of Keraia. Con$iti_ering_v the 'sieonjiesiions and the iaw appiicable in themetteifi,' ;ti§e.',jpfeiinfiinary objection raised regardingthe rn'aii1tainatti»iltir..Voffithe petition, was over--rti¥e'di."-ii;-ieniiie, n_o't"t"ind any merit in the contention of their"i_eeiiin,Veti.DiriCGP that the petition is not mainVta_inai'::«ii'e before tiiiiistiiourt. .,,_Learnee'-------%~iCGP stated that without instructions V.V,tfrortttime'jo'iri:§d~ictionai police, he is not in a position to rnake hisfiihinissions. In eimilar situation, in the case 7_stated.. oupra, this Court has heid that to avoid it 't.Ifrxon*ipiications, an anticipatory baii order of limited duration ' than 'be made by directing the petitioner to approach the Huciourt concerned for an appropriate order of bail. \X ".7. As already neticed, Mahila polliiceviieetetiehfi; Ahmedabad, has registered a case 'a'gainst'_:the"petitilonewr ie V Crime No.54 of zoos for the orreinycéslstatedtsapra;il jin1fhei_ petitioner who is an eiig:;vy:i'n.eer A.V'empl.oy'ed"f:in ":Tata'"
Consultancy Services, ..IT¥°toyl----E:iV<l'i'§lo'rer, Beng--elei:e~66, is likely to suffer a great ef he is arrested by the respondeets:"e_nd His suéden departure yneiay Taking these circumeta.ncee::"' in my view, the petitionei' is e.ntitl':e:iy'i;ey 4|'ilre_ii:ed ielief. _I_r2 tiie"reeult.,T--I the foliowing:
: . . . . . .
petition is allowed;
_T%(ii)v_ the event of the respondents arresting ll V the petitioner in connection with Crime No.54 of 2008 of Mahila police Station, Ahmedabad, the respondents are hereby directed to release the petitioner on bail on his executing a bond in a sum of \/
(iii) Rs.50,09G/- with a surety in their satisfaction.
The petitioner is directed jurisdictionai Court in:-~i(3£ijarat, j"wi'thiih_"i2(i days from the _date"of_"his ar;fe3st,. ii-i'ahiia:"'o police station?.__jBhmedahati,._Jt;:j5.3rai:.' In V' case, he makespfan =a_ppiitia'tion iwithin the time sétip.I:|ai;:ed§_VV"at2_oye;,._ this order of anticipatory."bait'°xé}iii'..__bej:,i.n'_'..force tiii such time asithatii;Cou.rt.V_'pas£;es an order. In thepetitio;iVaihtioes"'%1ot make any such 2 ceases to be in force A.?fi:_her;aai't.er,a.:'_'i.e_.,trom the 215' day of his ' arrést;"aa'z:n, i __ " ThVe_.'petitiio_.ner is aiso directed to appear ..gg:fo're the Mahiia Police station, Ahrnedavbad, Gujarat, if and when he is 'ierequired in connection with the case VAV.i':re"gistered against him in Crime No.54 of e p p§'2ooa.
The petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation of the case, will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and wit! also not ieave India without the prior permission of this Court, as iong as WE order remains in force.
(vi)
(vii) The petitioner is directed to his' passport (if he is in possessionTofVi.tjV: * 25* respondent aiongyiith 3.'Ce'r'':i.fi_edV'"co'py '"
_ this order.
The petitioner'sha£iA:mé'ri§. his ettendaoc=f§_,§e'~..L 25.10.2008 semen "$0.1 "p.m. i before the 1'*_'_i:re.$_p:.»_»ndefit _.¥';hei£ co- operatei_'_dVurin_§ t_ii£e1«go1j'i*se of investigation by the responderats. " "
This ordei'*'§granting §aritic'ipeto'ry..néi£, shaii remain in force up A V K93}: ..
Sd/-
Judge