Karnataka High Court
Shri. Habib S/O Nazirsab Haveri vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 June, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
CRL.P.No.101035/2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101035/2018
BETWEEN:
SHRI.HABIB S/O NAZIRSAB HAVERI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O RATTIHALLI, TQ.RATTIHALLI,
DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVRAJ S.BALLOLI, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH RATTIHALLI POLICE STATION, HAVERI,
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF Cr.P.C.
PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITONER IN
CRIMENO.139/2018 OF RATTIHALLI POLICE STATION FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 353, 332,
504 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.P.No.101035/2018
:2:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in crime No.139/2018 of respondent-police station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 353, 332, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, on 15.04.2018 at about 4.15 p.m., the complainant, who is said to be a Home Guard after noticing that the present accused joined with other two accused was riding a single motorcycle violating all traffic rules, made them to stop and advised to follow the traffic rules. After advising, the complainant went to a nearby canteen to have some food. At that time, all the three accused who were got advised from the complainant to obey the traffic rules approached the complainant and started abusing him in filthy language including talking about he working for a meager remuneration in the Home Guard. Apart from abusing him in filthy language, they CRL.P.No.101035/2018 :3: also took out a water jug placed in the canteen and assaulted and further assaulted the complainant with their hands and fists. Thereafter, the injured complainant went to the hospital and after taking treatment returned to the police station and lodged a complaint against them.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument while relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 submitted that the jail is an exception and the bail is a right and every matter is required to be considered in a humanistic approach, whereas in the instant case, a reading of the complaint itself shows that a false complaint has been lodged against the accused. As such, imposing any stringent conditions, the accused may be enlarged on bail.
4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent in his oral objections vehemently opposed the petition stating that, very reading of the complaint CRL.P.No.101035/2018 :4: prima facie go to show that the accused apart from violating the traffic rules have also manhandled and assaulted a public servant on duty, who had advised them. As such, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh's case (Supra) at paragraph 1 was pleased to observe as below:
"Leave granted. 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 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 CRL.P.No.101035/2018 :5: do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society."
6. Keeping the said principle in mind, when the present case on hand is considered, a bare reading of the complaint go to show that the complainant had not any previous animosity or enmity against the accused, but only, as a public servant on duty advised the accused to obey the traffic rules. It is in retaliation of being advised by a Home Guard, the accused said to have manhandled by assaulting him. The entire reading of the complaint at this stage does not imbibe any suspicion to take it on its facial value for the present purpose of considering the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. As such, when the complaint clearly reveals as to how the complainant on duty was manhandled by the accused for no specific reason, it is in addition to the injuries sustained by him, the occurrence of the incident and the behaviour of the accused in taking law in their hand and assaulting a public servant on duty is of great seriousness. Further, CRL.P.No.101035/2018 :6: according to the Government Pleader, the apprehension of the accused is also very much required for the investigation purposes. For all these reasons, I am of the view, it is a fit case where the accused cannot be granted the relief of anticipatory bail as a matter of right, but there are valid reasons to deny him the said privilege. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/-