Karnataka High Court
Sri C N Srinivasa Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1096 OF 2014
C/W.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1097 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.C.N.SRINIVASA REDDY
S/O.NARAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/A.NO.58, CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 064.
...PETITIONER IN CRL.P.NO.1096/2014
2. SRI.C.N.SHIVARAMA REDDY
S/O.LATE NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/A.CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
YELHANKA - HOBLI
BANGALORE - 560 064.
...PETITIONER IN CRL.P.NO.1097/2014
(BY SRI.V.LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADV.,)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SAMPIGEHALLI
POLICE STATION, BANGALORE
REPT. BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
2
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST
IN CR.NO.14/2014 OF SAMPIGEHALLI P.S., BANGALORE
CITY, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 447, 436, 435 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
These two petitions filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.2 and 7 and both the petitions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent - police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 447, 436 and 435 r/w.Section 149 of IPC registered by the respondent - police in Crime No.14/2014.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the averments in the complaint that one Ananda Murthy is the complainant and he has mentioned in his complaint that on 15-01-2014 at about 4.15 p.m. when he was near by his house one Rajanna and other 20-30 3 people of Chokkanahalli village formed an unlawful assembly and they brought one dead body of the school boy and entered the school premises and he learnt that they were setting fire to the school. Along with his relatives, he immediately rushed to the school and at that time one Rajanna, Srinivasareddy, Ravi, Siddhi, Muniraj, Govindraj, Sriramreddy and sons of Kannappa and other 20 persons entered into the school premises and damaged the articles kept in the school i.e., computer, they have broken the window glasses and set fire and thereby caused loss to the school. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered against the present petitioners and also other accused persons.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners of both the petitions and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his argument submitted that even according 4 to the averments made in the complaint that 20-30 people entered into the school premises, caused damaged to the school building and also articles kept in the school and even damaged the window and set fire. Counsel made the submission that regarding the involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged offences no prima-facie material has been placed by the prosecution. He also made the submission that accused No.11 who said to have been arrested by the police at the spot has been already approached this Court seeking bail and the said application was allowed. Counsel also stated that the petitioners are innocent and not at all involved in the commission of the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated. By imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be admitted to bail.
5. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that there is a prima-facie material placed by the prosecution against both the petitioners about their 5 involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. He also made the submission that the materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation also goes to show the involvement of both these petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. He submitted that offences alleged are serious in nature and hence they are not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case. Looking to the averments made in the complaint, it is the contention of the complainant that the alleged incident took place at 4.15 p.m. It is also his case that when the incident was going on immediately police rushed to the spot and after seeing the police, the accused persons ran away from the spot. But looking to the time of lodging the complaint it is 21.45 hours, so at this stage prosecution has not placed the material making explanation about the delay in lodging the complaint. Admittedly, the police were at 6 the spot immediately after the incident and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions that mahazar has not been drawn at the spot about the alleged loss said to have been caused to the school building. So the copy of the mahazar is also not produced by the prosecution. Atleast to show that such mahazar was drawn at the spot to show the accused persons burnt the school premises, furniture and caused damages to the windows, computers etc., Looking to the contentions raised by both the petitioners in these petitions that they have completely denied the allegations made and contended that they are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. The offences alleged are exclusively not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The only apprehension of the prosecution is that if the petitioners are granted with anticipatory bail, they may again involve in the commission of such offences in future also and even they may abscond. For this apprehension of the prosecution, so also to secure the presence of both the petitioners either before the 7 Investigating Officer or before the concerned Court, stringent conditions can be imposed which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that petitioners in respect of both the petitions are entitled to be granted with bail.
8. Accordingly, petitions are allowed. The respondent - police are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 447, 436 and 435 r/w.Section 149 of IPC registered by the respondent - police in Crime No.14/2014, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall execute
a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/- each (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;
(ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;
8
(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the respondent - police on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon till the completion of the investigation; and
(iv) The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond and also the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE VMB