Karnataka High Court
Ashok Shastry vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2023
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31148
CRL.P No. 519 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 519 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
ASHOK SHASTRY
S/O RAMPRASAD SHASTRY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO.512 8TH CROSS
3RD PHASE J.P. NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 078.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AIYAPPA K.G, ADV.)
Digitally
AND:
signed by
NANDINI MS
Location: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
High Court of BY J P NAGAR POLICE
Karnataka
STATION BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. RAVIKIRAN ALGUR
S/O RAGHAVENDRA ALGUR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT PLOT NO.35
SRI LAXMI BHAIRAV NAGAR
ATHANI ROAD
BIJAPUR - 586 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI B.S. VENKATANARAYANA, ADV., FOR
SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADV.)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31148
CRL.P No. 519 of 2023
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2022 IN CRL.MISC.NO.12509/2022
PASSED BY THE LEARNED LV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-56), THERE BY CANCELLING
THE IMPUGNED BAIL ORDER FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The defacto complainant is before this Court under Section 439(2) Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the order dated 27.12.2022 passed by the Court of LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.12509/2022, wherein respondent no.2 has been granted regular bail under Section 439 Cr.PC in Crime No.298/2022 registered by J.P.Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 436, 448, 504, 511 IPC.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioner herein had lodged a complaint on 15.12.2022 before the J.P.Nagar Police, Bengaluru, alleging that respondent no.2 who is his former employee who was dismissed on 07.02.2019, has been harassing him and his family members -3- NC: 2023:KHC:31148 CRL.P No. 519 of 2023 on social media. It is also alleged that in the early morning of 13.12.2022, respondent no.2 threw seven bags of petrol inside his garage and tried to lit fire and damage the property of the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR in Crime No.298/2022 was registered by J.P.Nagar Police against respondent no.2 for the aforesaid offences.
4. During the course of investigation, respondent no.2 was arrested on 17.12.2022. His regular bail application filed before the LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.12509/2022 was allowed on 27.12.2022. Challenging the said order, the defacto complainant is before this Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the facts of the case before enlarging respondent no.2 on bail. He submits that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to take judicial notice of the fact that the offence under Section 436 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life. He submits that the seriousness of the allegations in the complaint has not been properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge which has -4- NC: 2023:KHC:31148 CRL.P No. 519 of 2023 resulted in erroneously granting the relief of regular bail to respondent no.2. The discretionary relief has been arbitrarily exercised in favour of respondent no.2. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:
(i) Bharatbhai Bhimabhai Bharwad Vs. State of Gujarat & Others - (2020)18 SCC 693;
(ii) Lalitha Vs. State of Karnataka, Subramanya Police Station & Others - Crl.P.No.7143/2021 decided on 14.01.2022;
(iii) Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla Vs. Anitha Agarwal & Others - 2020 SCC OnLine SCC 1031;
(iv) Shanid.T. Vs. State represented by Public Prosecutor & another - 2011 SCC OnLine Ker 3795;
(v) Sudha Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another -
(2021)4 SCC 781;
(vi) State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav & another - (2016)2 SCC 402;
(vii) Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh & another Vs. State of Gujarat & Others - (2004)4 SCC 158.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that charge sheet in the case is filed and the offence under Section 436 IPC has been dropped in the charge sheet. The -5- NC: 2023:KHC:31148 CRL.P No. 519 of 2023 maximum punishment for the other offences is only imprisonment for seven years. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in granting bail in favour of respondent no.2. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. The alleged incident had taken place on 13.12.2022. The complaint was lodged by the petitioner herein on 15.12.2022. There is no proper explanation for the inordinate delay caused in filing the complaint. Respondent no.2 is a former employee of the petitioner. It is stated in the complaint that due to the behavioral issues of respondent no.2, he was dismissed from service by the petitioner. Petitioner appears to have lodged complaints against respondent no.2 even earlier to the present complaint. Though in the present case FIR was registered for the offence under Section 436 IPC, the police after investigation have filed charge sheet against respondent no.2 only for the offences under Sections 435, 448, 504, 511 IPC. No charge sheet has been filed against respondent no.2 for the offence under Section 436 IPC. The maximum punishment for the offences alleged against the petitioner is imprisonment which may extend to seven years.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:31148 CRL.P No. 519 of 2023
8. During the course of investigation, respondent no.2 was arrested in the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge has enlarged him on regular bail. From the perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while granting the relief of regular bail to respondent no.2, it cannot be said that the order impugned is either perverse or illegal. Unless exceptional and supervening circumstances is made out, an order of granting bail to an accused cannot be cancelled. In the present case, no such exceptional or supervening circumstance has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner so as to cancel the regular bail granted to respondent no.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 435, 448, 504, 511 IPC.
9. It is trite that judgments can be relied upon as precedents only if they are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. None of the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner can be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Under the circumstances, I -7- NC: 2023:KHC:31148 CRL.P No. 519 of 2023 do not find any good reason to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE KK