Karnataka High Court
Prakash Mahadev Iragar vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 October, 2020
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRL.P. NO.101326 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRAKASH MAHADEV IRAGAR
AGE:35 YEARS, OCC:POLICE CONSTABLE,
R/O CHIKKODI, TAL:CHIKKODI,
DIST:BELAGAVI-587201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINAND A PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH RAIBAG POLICE STATION,
NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARAWD-580011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO GRANT
ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1O
IN CRIME NO.131/2020 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 324, 307,
302, 201, 176, 212 AND 120(B) READ WITH SECTION 149
OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.131/2020 of Raibag Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 R/W Section 149 of IPC.
3. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against ten accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 201, 212, 176, 120(B) read with Section 149 of IPC.
4. One Raghavendra Metri lodged a complaint alleging that on 3.6.2020, he along with his brother Manjunath and his cousin Kalmeshwara Gopala Mane, after attending the marriage of his friend Laxman Uppar, returned to their house at 3 about 11 p.m. When they were sleeping in the house, at about 3 a.m., they heard some noise and came out of the house and saw about six persons on two motor cycles. Realising that they have come to steal the Buffaloes, the first informant and his uncle Mukunda chased them in their bike. After traveling for sometime, the accused persons stopped their vehicle at Mavinahonda village and started pelting stones at them and they assaulted them with stick etc. and pushed them in the nearby Well. After some time, the first informant came out of the well, but he did not find his uncle as it was dark. He informed the matter to others and when they searched, his uncle was found dead inside the well.
5. During the course of investigation, accused persons namely, accused No.1 to 9 were arrested. Their voluntary statements were recorded. On completion of investigation, charge 4 sheet came to be filed arraigning the present petitioner as accused No.10.
6. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he is working as a Police Constable at Chikkodi Police Station and he is closely acquainted with accused No.2-Sagar S/o Siddappa Sanadi. In spite of knowing that the said accused has committed the above offence, he intentionally failed to inform the matter and instead he gave a sum of Rs.5,000/- to accused No.2 for his expenses and helped him to escape from the clutches of law. Hence, he has committed offences punishable under Sections 212 and 176 of IPC.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the voluntary statement of accused No.2, the present petitioner has been arraigned as an accused. He submits that accused No.7 is already enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.101137/2020 vide order dated 6.10.2020. 5 Except the bald allegations, there are no material to connect the present petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is working as a Police Constable and in the event of his arrest, he will be put to great hardship. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition.
8. Per contra, the learned HCGP has vehemently opposed grant of bail to the petitioner and sought to reject the petition.
9. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was closely acquainted with accused No.2 and knowing well that the said accused committed a heinous offence along with other accused, concealed the said fact with an intention to screen the accused from legal punishment and gave Rs.5,000/- to accused No.2 for his expenses and failed to furnish the information regarding commission of the offence.
10. There are no direct evidence at this stage against the petitioner for having committed 6 the aforesaid offences. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been implicated as one of the accused on the voluntary statement of accused No.2.
11. It is well settled that it is the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of granting bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the relief sought by the petitioner in this petition can be granted by imposing appropriate conditions. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
a) Petition is allowed.
b) The petitioner/accused No.10 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.131/2020 of Raibag Police Station, subject to the following conditions:7
i) The petitioner shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1 lakh with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii) The petitioner shall make hi mself available for the purpose of further investigation, as and when called for.
iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses ei ther directly or indirectly.
iv) The petitioner shall be regular in attending the trial proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE JTR