Karnataka High Court
Rajesab @ Raju S/O Lalsab Pendari vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 October, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRL. P. NO. 102073/2017
BETWEEN:
RAJESAB @ RAJU S/O LALSAB PENDARI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS AND
MEMBER OF VPC ADVAISOMAPUR,
R/O ADAVISOMAPUR, TAL/DIST: GADAG.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.C. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS AT DHARWAD
(PERTAINING TO GADAG TOWN POLICE
STATION)
- RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
ANTIICPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME
NO. 192/2017 OF GADAG TOWN POLICE STATION, GADAG, FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 307, 504,
506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(2)(VA) of SC and ST
ACT & ETC.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This bail petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 192/2017 of Gadag Town Police Station (SPL. SC/ST NO. 12/2017 on the file of District & Sessions (Special) Court, Gadag, for the offences punishable under Section 307, 323, 341, 504, 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(V), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned SPP appearing for the State and perused the records.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the accused is an innocent person and not involved in attempt to take away the life of the complainant and as well as abusing him in filthy language naming his 3 caste. But the allegations made in the complaint as well as the charge sheet laid against the accused, the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out. Further, the petitioner is the only bread winner of the family consisting of old aged parents and the petitioner hails from a respectable family. These grounds are to be considered for grant of bail apart from other grounds urged in the bail petition.
4. Per contra, learned SPP appearing for the State submits that subsequent to filing of a complaint, case came to be registered in Crime No. 192/2017 and thereafter the IO proceeded with the case for investigation and during the course of investigation he has recorded the statement of witnesses and laid charge sheet against the accused. The statement of witnesses reveals that there are prima facie materials to proceed against the accused. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve for grant of bail. Hence, prays for dismissal of the bail petition.
4
5. Having regard to the contentions taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned SPP for the State, the averments made in the complaint and the FIR laid by the Police, it is relevant to state that the complainant and his associates had been for Kabaddi Tournament on the village fair of Durgadevi at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Nagar, Gadag, in the open place. At that time it was announced that the opponent team has not come and asked them to stay away, while they came outside and standing there, they were enraged with the words exchanged by the other players, the accused abused by taking name of the caste, the accused made life threat and also attempted to take away the life of the complainant. On that ground complaint came to be filed based upon which FIR was recorded by the Police. However, subsequent to registration of the crime the I.O. has conducted investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses, spot mahazar and laid charge sheet before the Court for dealing with the matter for the offences under the provisions of SC/ST Act, 2015.
5
6. Though the statement of witnesses have been recorded by the IO during the course of investigation relating to the averments made in the complaint and so also the narration of facts in the FIR recorded by the Police by registering the crime against the accused and also the offences which are alleged to have been committed by the accused, but at this stage for consideration of bail petition filed by the accused by urging various grounds are concerned, it is relevant to state that the materials which are collected by the I.O. who has laid the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences, it cannot be said that all the materials relating to the complicity of the offences or in a gospel truth for the offences which were leveled against the accused. Therefore, it is stated that the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner apart from urging the grounds for seeking the relief of bail are concerned, it is stated that there are substances in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused for seeking the relief of bail. It is relevant to state that though the charge sheet is laid against the accused for the alleged offence which 6 is reflected in the FIR as well as the charge sheet leveled against the accused by recording the statement of the witnesses and so also conducted mahazar during the course of investigation it is in the presence of panch witnesses and the same has been placed by the prosecution in order to establish the guilt against the accused. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that there are enough materials to proceed with the case against the accused for framing of a charge, but it cannot be said that there are enough materials to state that there are strong prima facie materials for denial of bail sought by the accused as the denial as at this stage just because the materials collected by the IO is nothing but pre-trial evidence. For all these reasons it is stated in the bail petition as well as urging grounds by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, I am of the opinion that the petitioner-accused is deserving for bail. The apprehension of the learned SPP that, in the event the petitioner is released on bail, he would certainly come in the way of the prosecution, can be curtailed by imposing suitable condition to safeguard 7 the interest of the prosecution. Hence, the following order is passed.
ORDER The bail petition filed by the petitioner u/S 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed subject to the following conditions.
1. The petitioner shall appear before the Special Court in connection with Spl. SC/ST No. 12/2017 within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with like sum surety for the satisfaction of the concerned Court of law;
2. The petitioner shall co-operate with the I.O., if necessary;
3. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses or hamper the trial of the case;
4. The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in fortnight as per English Monthly Calendar between 8 10 am and 5 pm before the concerned SHO for a period of three months;
5. The petitioner shall not indulge with criminal activities henceforth.
If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the bail order shall automatically stand ceased.
SD/-
JUDGE bvv