Karnataka High Court
Udesha @ Udesh Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2023
-1-
CRL.P No. 12407 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12407 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. UDESHA @ UDESH KUMAR,
S/O NARASIMHEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST,
R/O B.BACHAHALLI VILLAGE,
BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 812.
2. NARASIMHEGOWDA,
S/O LATE KARIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST,
R/O B.BACHAHALLI VILLAGE,
BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 812.
Digitally signed 3. SAROJAMMA,
by LAKSHMI T
Location: High W/O NARASIMHEGOWDA,
Court Of AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
Karnataka
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O B.BACHAHALLI VILLAGE,
BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 812.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VINAY BHAT.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
CRL.P No. 12407 of 2022
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY K.R.PETE RURAL POLICE STATION,
K.R.PETE.
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.RAHUL RAI, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CR.NO.192/2022 OF K.R.PET RURAL P.S., MANDYA
FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.143, 504, 306, 149 OF IPC PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Dn.) AND JMFC COURT
K.R.PET MANDYA DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners-accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.192/2022 of K.R.Pet Rural Police Station, Mandya, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 504, 306, 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Nethravathi. -3- CRL.P No. 12407 of 2022
2. Heard Sri.Vinay Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri.K.Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. They have not committed any offences as alleged. They have been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. They are having reasonable apprehension of being arrested. Hence, they are before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that initially Crime No.187/22 was registered by the K.R. Pet Police against accused No.1 on the complaint lodged by the deceased alleging that his daughter was kidnapped by accused No.1. Accused No.1 was enlarged on bail as per the order passed by the Sessions Court. Thereafter, this complaint came to be filed by the wife of the deceased alleging that the accused are responsible for the death of the deceased. The petitioners are in no way concerned for the offences in question. They are not required for custodial interrogation. The petitioners are the permanent residents of -4- CRL.P No. 12407 of 2022 the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the petition and are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP submitted that serious allegations are made against all the accused including the petitioners herein for having committed the offences. The informant made a specific allegation against the accused that they came to the house of the deceased and instigated him to commit suicide. The petitioners are absconding since from the date of registration of the case. Investigation is still at initial stage. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are not entitled for bail.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?"-5-
CRL.P No. 12407 of 2022
My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
6. The allegations made against the petitioners are of serious nature. The informant has specifically stated about the offences committed by each of the accused. At this stage, it cannot be concluded that they are falsely implicated in the matter. Even though the petitioners are absconding from the date of registration of the case, it is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioners are required for custodial interrogation. Hence, in my opinion, reasonable conditions may be imposed while granting anticipatory bail. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehensions expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioners may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.
7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: -6- CRL.P No. 12407 of 2022
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.192/2022 of K.R.Pet Rural Police Station.
The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on their appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge them on bail subject to the following conditions:-
a. The petitioners shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only)each, with two sureties each, for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;
b. The petitioners shall not commit similar offences;
c. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and d. The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.
-7-CRL.P No. 12407 of 2022 On furnishing the sureties by the petitioners, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the addresses and authenticity of the documents furnished by them. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.
Sd/-
JUDGE TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70