Manjunath vs State By on 11 July, 2018

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Manjunath vs State By on 11 July, 2018

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                              1


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2018

                           BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.4643 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

  1. Manjunath,
     S/o Hanumappa,
     Aged about 31 years,
     P.C.No.140,
     Honnahalli Police Station,
     Honnahalli Taluk,
     Davanagere District - 577217.
     R/at Koolahalli Village,
     Harappanahalli Taluk,
     Davanagere District - 583131.

  2. Dhanajaya,
     S/o Revana Siddappa,
     Aged about 37 years,
     PC No.6150, Mico Layout police station,
     R/at No.04, 20th Block,
     Nandi Samkirna,
     Adugodi, Bengaluru.

  3. Shivappa,
     S/o Shivashankarappa Mesthy,
     Aged about 30 years,
     PC No.957,
     Aalamatti Police Station,
     Basavanabhagewadi Taluk,
     Vijayapura District - 586 201.
     R/at Nidagundi Village,
                                     2


       Basavana Bagevaadi Taluk,
       Vijayapura - 586 213.                      ...Petitioners

(By Sri K. Akram Pasha, Advocate)

AND:

State by Yelahanka Town Police,
Now CCB Police,
Bengaluru City,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru - 560 001.                             ...Respondent

(By Sri. S. Vishwa Murthy, HCGP)

       This Criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their
arrest in Crime No.160/2016 (C.C.No.8989/2018) of Yelahanka
New Town Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence P/U/S 124A,
166 R/w 120B and 109 of IPC and Section 5 of the Karnataka
Essential Services Maintenance Act, Section 3 of Police
(Incitement to disaffection) Act and Section 4 of the Police
Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act.

      This Criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day, the
Court made the following:

                               ORDER

The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.160/2016 registered under Section 5 of the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981, Sections 166, 109, 120B, 124A 3 of IPC and Section 4 of Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922, Section 4 of the Police Force (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. Inspite of affording sufficient time, the learned HCGP has not filed any written statement of objections opposing the petition.

4. The facts of the case are that accused No.1 had formed an association called Akhila Karnataka Police Maha Sangha and was spearheading a movement to instigate the lower rung of the police force to act against the present elected Government. He is stated to have addressed messages to the rank and file of the Karnataka Police force to go on mass leave on 4.6.2016 and in order to avoid untoward situation, the Government had issued a notification dated 31.05.2015 declaring that Karnataka State Police Force as essential services under the Karnataka Essential Services Maintenance Act 2013.

5. The only question that requires to be considered in this case is whether after the submission of the charge sheet the petitioners could be admitted to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. undisputedly the petitioners are not named in the FIR. The charge sheet indicates that during investigation, the role played by them is not specifically ascertained. Inspite of it, they are arrayed as accused in the charge sheet solely on the ground that they were instrumental in exchanging whats-app message. It is not in dispute that during investigation of the aforesaid crime, the petitioners were very much in service. If in fact, the presence of the petitioners is necessary, Investigating Officer could have secured their presence for the purpose of investigation. The charge sheet does not contain any material to show that any notice was issued to the petitioners to participate in the investigation. Therefore, merely because of the submission of the charge sheet, petitioners do not forfeit their right to maintain a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. if they are otherwise entitled to.

6. Taking into account all the above facts and circumstances, in my view, the custody of the petitioners is not be necessary for the purpose of trial.

7. Hence, the following order:-

Criminal petition is allowed. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Court within 15 days from the date of this order and on their appearance, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioners and shall enlarge them on bail on the same day subject to the following conditions:-

a. The petitioners shall furnish a bond in a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

b. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

c. The petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation;

d. The petitioners shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses; and 6 e. The petitioners shall mark their attendance in Yelahanka New Town Police Station, Bengaluru, on the 15th of every month until submission of the final report.

Sd/-

JUDGE MH/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court