Karnataka High Court
Atul Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 September, 2008
Equivalent citations: 2009 CRI. L. J. 634, 2009 (2) ALJ (NOC) 379 (KAR.), 2009 (1) AIR KANT HCR 151, (2009) 74 ALLINDCAS 402 (KAR), (2008) ILR (KANT) 4763, (2009) 1 ALLCRILR 254, (2009) 2 CRIMES 495
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA&LQ'fV%E:"
DATED THIS THE 2"" DAY or-' SEPTEMBER, .2*a§3& T '
BEFORE L L V' A
THE HON"BLE MFLJUSTICE ASHO§1('.B;:'HiNCF§I(5.ERI'~ '
BETWEEN ATUL RAG S/G LATE SRIDHAR RAG V AGED ABGUT 35 YEARS,._ 3 _ % R/AT'DHARMA SHREE' i 'V _ DODBANNAGUDDE, 4' " '2 A KUNJIBETU POST, _ SHIVALIJ VILLAGE, A ., UDUPI TALUKANI3 DIST. YA; "
.-- " ...PE'm'IONER [av SARI.._3F\YAKUh3¥A R '3..4"P§Ti.i., SR. ADVOCATE FOR 3--AYAKUM__AR_PATiL ASSOCIATES] Am THE.S'fATEW§C)F_vkfiRbiATA_KA, av ma sure. pu5Lzcp:z<:.s ECUTOR HIGH CC1U'R_T«BU§EL§IN$,"
Lj%5AN<;ALoAR£' _, ':% (THaouGH"s.H.«.§.,%MAN1PAL P.S.) ...RESPON{)ENT [BY SR1 PM. NAWAZ, ASPP] '~THIS CRLP IS FILED U./S. 439 CREPEC BY THE ADVOCATE FGR. THE ,PET'fTIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE V'V~v.PLE'}\SED TO GRANT EAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN CRIME N0.1f)9/D8 ".._Q'F~..MANIF'AL P.S., UDUPI DISTRICT WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE CBFFENCE P/U/3.365, 3336 OF IPC.
THIS CRLP comma on FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE'. thug? MADE THE FOLLOWING.
GQDER This petition is filed for the grant (if baii ef the Code of Criminal Procedure, _
2. The brief facts of the caséaifie that 't'heVV:p:e5titi:§aner and Sr: Raghupathi Bhat, sitting ifhe_'LL:§gi§iat§ve Assembly from Udupi Constituency are ch.ii:dh.o(iVfSA& iifiuey have been residing in the Sdih_.jéf..vthérrribeieng te Shivaiii Brahmin con,ih1'i§vh1'ity:§_.vTh;séidaisri' i---iafvfihupathi shat icdged a complaint onxA'«:i,_9'*'3un_é,A§f2£)'0$""with the jurisdictionai pciice against the, ;t.ei;itiea§iefV'fcr.v"thé dffences punishabie under Section 3:3;-and 36$ erhimeigndiainanat Code, the complainant is that the petitioner evefiithihg abfout the househaid and the financial affairs of The compiainant left his hcmetown on 11"' 2"v§O8'ie Eangaiore. His efforts to get in touch with his wife Fiafdmapriya did :29: iead him anywhere. Gr: coming ts af the missing of his wife on 13"' June, 2008, he came to HRH,
6. On forming the above said epinion, Court has rejected the bail petitien.
7. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, the-'learnedseh§§:r._:eu--:é'sei". appearing for M/s. Jayakumar S. Petii.
petitierzer submits that the compieinvfitfs versiehV.is'v_f1i'i'iJef"ieose it ends. He submits that the deceesed"$hi;t:f hfiedmahriy-a ieft home on 11"' June, 2008. The the record on 13"' June, 2008 itself and the poticze and the cc-mp!aineht"'»a..htiQ:-serhe_Vef went to Delhi. He submits so far decisiveiy indicate that the deceatsedm has ef her own voiition, as the meijriage hefiueen the complainant had faiien on the reck_s..A W .,
8..'* further submits that the petitiener is being shreijserguted miiy: because of the political persenalities invelved. e%§;:zV;§>¥éiA_rzant £5 a sitting M.L..A. belonging te the ruling party, He brings ta my notice the statement issued by a 3"'~v.:t%t"'t1:i¥;:;§':iterested witness, namely, Sri Nireosh Kumar, watchman of Shame Apartments. He has stated that on 14"' June, 2008 the 3824.
10 been a Member ef the Parliament. aut in the insteiett'ee'$e..":fe--e' accused petitioner has no such criminal bec§<greL;*:td;ff _ ' ' 15. If there is threat to the ltte' A'the"veecusad;:'""§.g5é~._ paramount need is to give him tttierfirottetztttiertz. tleny him the bat! and keep himjn tbretjhaiiitttfer h5e"owr:"v: security reasons. Liberty of a citizerrhtes to e'eeij(:..I.;S:y safeguarded, particulariy when hts_jre.!eas;eVV'frort1 tenet posing any threat to the publfc
16. :rAt'ttie stetérfient of objectiens as to what was the"--£e:g«alV when it was received, etc. Azthough the _deetfi"t§ot<..;§--laee 15*" June, 2003, the complaint ca_:t1et.,_to June, 2008 and it came to be regiete're::1T_én 2008. The deiay at all the stages is not sa.t§ete.cteri!y expiained. Nothing is forthcoming as . .jte,wt:y,,the statement cf Sri Sum! Kumar, the former M.L.A. frem K._}ar§ge¥t;"_:$;l:je"3veet to Deihi, is not recerded. The statement made vretchman of $heme Apartments in Dem! is indicative of V'f'twe_:t.hIngs (a) there were no restricttens on the movement of the ecteteeased fady. A5 a matter of fact she went out and came back 83:4.
12
(b) character of the offence;
(c) circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;
(d) possibility of not securing the presence of the _ec§:u_sed at the triai; r
(e) reasenabie apprehension of the tampered with; _ e V
(f) the larger interest of the public ef.thi2 St_ete.'*--. 4'
19. The Courts normaiiy decline bet! in_ cases_--v_ef »eiTeni:esV"~ punishable with death or imprisonrneritfor lite'sincej'thVe:.VseVerity it of punishmer2ti's_v t.o_'induce the accused to flee fromjustice. id > 'A S V 20. _;'i'he. Stipreme Court in the case of nessgznm daemon AND omens v. Hone sEcIier)ee2Y.isTA"rekm= BIHAR, PATNA reported in AIR 1979 _1366"-«i._hesg'tediéen the considered View that the primary veof i:';<i--rtninal iaw is that imprisonment may foliow a guilt but should not precede it Pre--triai detentien eprirpose and pelicy behind it and the issue ef bail er jaii 9.3%.
13 has to be decided by the court on relevant criteria andV.h.et.pn emntienally appealing but iegaliy irneertinent circums_i:;ehcee.§._j:
21. The accused petitiener has net.~evadeclthe:.errési'_;j;.<)h.,. it the other hand he has eurrendered Zhimieeif;
conduct of the accused is also a Cli'§i;.i!f'l1StaAf¥C:£t tea taken 'into " it coneideratlen. The requirerrients aes...Vte.._baii' are"'te._AAsec}ure the attendance of the accused ball is not to be withheld as a measure __ef no legitimate apprehension is__r..ex1p%:es__eed'j_:__A_ti1at possibility of absceneenceief the:;'eiiitie'r:er;--there" is no harm in considering his request for h'aii." _ "
<2; ..l;'Th,_éV:C£?LiFt ceasidering the bail applicatien must have serrife from which it would be satisfied that the i"e.epreherieien thatithe accused weuld tamper with the evidence if . ..%.feleased en hailiis genuine. only because some allegations are released on hail, the accused wouid tamper with efvidje'hce% may not be sufficient for the Court to refuse the bait to V'flV'jthe4_daccused person. That the refuse! ef the bail is a serious flifiié.
matter because the iiberty ef a titizen ef Inéia is interfejr'ei§ij««..\r\ii!;h 14 when the bait is refused.
23. Taking all these facters ;a'fid"'circ¥u_mste:ri§:ee_VV"iVr;fte".
pragmatic censicieretion, I grant bail to iiheilpetitiebrier'Aeebjeefte'=, the following cenditiens:
(1) (2)
(33% 3 here) The petitioner shaii;:.._._?ej.>tec--ii:teV--' fer a sum of es.1,0o,eoo/-(eupeesiwe iekh ehiyyiiiifwsih two sureties for the iike%__':eii§ti2r:.§e.Vii'hei;s'ei:iefeefiiSii"*er the jurisdictional The 9etiI;'iener"*sh'a:ii»~r§k:gt"i:eri1:Jer with the Iaresecutien vwgiifiheeses; "
'Their eve;i§i*ti,eh:er..shai¥ attend the Triat Ceurt reguiarly; Tee gaetiigieher shaii mark his presence before the AA S%tatiee:House Officer, Menipai Poiice Station on every *i.V_"S--u.hdey between 10.00 am, and 2,00 p.m.; The petitioner sheil make himseif avaiiebie befere the Investigation Officer, Cat), as and when required; figéi 15 (6) The petitioner shall co-cperate with the Invest.iga.t!en Officer.
(7) If the petitioner faiis to ccsmpbj witii"--,an.y'rgii_a:!_!":ttié.i'1 conditions stipulated herein ab7eyé;*.V_it isfi;>_t;;>A'ei:*i rasgmnéent to mgve the Coi2--rt"'=fs,sr tii'e't:a'ricsaf'EiaVti1::;rr 'éfs the V baii.
24. It is rnadetiear_t.hét-,ttiééA fife21°se;n'sV:«'i.»vsiiown and the observatiens made t§y"rn§VaréAorri9AVfé:'r "purpose ef disposing of this petiticrrg. .Coairt shat! decide the criminai case pending béfore it,"'-u.ri'iiiri»u:é'ritfe§d by the reasons shown and the1vobser~qa;t'i€>r':s rrrade. Qifhiiie granting the bail"
301/'9 Iudgéi