Karnataka High Court
Sri.Krishna Chakravarthi vs The State Of Karnataka, on 24 April, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100701/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI KRISHNA CHAKRAVARTHI
S/O KRISHNA THOREDA,
AGED: ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/O: NO.17,
BASAGIDORI POST,
H.B. HALLI TALUKA,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D L LADKHAN & SRI M L LADKHAN, ADVOCATES)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KOTTUR POLICE STATION,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ISSUE NECESSARY
DIRECTION AND ORDER TO KOTTUR POLICE STATION,
KUDLIGI AND ANY POLICE OFFICER TO RELEASE,
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST
IN CRIME NO.25 OF 2017 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 295(A), 504 OF IPC AND SECTION 67 OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is the petition filed by petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Section 504, 295A of I.P.C. and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, registered in respondent-police station Crime No.25/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments that on 23.02.2017, one Prakash son of B.Jagadeeshappa gave the complaint alleging that on 21.02.2017 in Jatra of Sri Kottureswara Swamy Rathotsava and due to some technical reason wheel of the :3: Ratha was broken and due to the said incident some people had sustained simple injuries. The allegation as against the present petitioner that he used the abusive words against said festival and the said Rathotsava. Thereby he has created communal disharmony, breach of public peace and he tried to insult the persons by using such abusive words. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused No.1 and learned High Court Govt. Pleader for respondent-state.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, FIR and complaint and also other materials produced so also the bail order by the learned Sessions Judge, Hosapete rejecting the bail petition.
5. In the bail petition, the petitioner contended that he never used such abusive words in respect of the Rathotsava festival and by making false allegations as :4: against him, he has been involved in the said case. He also submitted that he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Looking to the alleged offences, they are not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be admitted to anticipatory bail. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-police are hereby directed to enlarge the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences registered in respondent-police station Crime No.25/2017, subject to the following conditions:
a. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of arresting authority. b. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. c. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when called for interrogation.:5:
d. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE CLK