Karnataka High Court
Mr Abin P Sibi vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 November, 2024
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45392
CRL.P No. 10877 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10877 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MR. ABIN P SIBI
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
S/O MR. SIBI B.E.
R/AT PICHAKKAPALLI HOUSE
VAZIKADAVU VILLAGE PATHERA POST
PODAKKALA NAGAR, NILAMBOORU TALUK
MALAPUURA KERALA STATE - 679 333.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SACHIN B.S, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KADADBA POLICE STATION
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 221
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally
signed by HIGH COURT BUILDING
NANDINI MS BANGALORE - 560 001.
Location: ...RESPONDENT
High Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI CHANNAPPA EERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS)
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT
POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.,
IN CONNECTION WITH SC.NO.5012/2024 IN CR.NO.31/2024
REGISTERED BY KADABA POLICE, ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE, SITTING AT
PUTTUR, D.K., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 447,326(A),307 AND 201
OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45392
CRL.P No. 10877 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused in S.C.No.5012/2024 pending before the Court of V Addl. District & Sessions, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, sitting at Puttur, arising out of Crime No.31/2024 registered by Kadaba Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 326A, 307, 201 IPC, is before this Court under Section 439 Cr.PC.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.31/2024 was registered by Kadaba Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District, initially for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 326A, 307 IPC against the petitioner herein on the basis of the first information dated 04.03.2024 received from Salin.K.P., S/o K.C.Poulose - Lecturer in Government PU College, Kadaba. During the course of investigation of the case, petitioner was arrested on 04.03.2024 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court in -3- NC: 2024:KHC:45392 CRL.P No. 10877 of 2024 S.C.No.5012/2024 was rejected on 03.09.2024. Therefore, he is before this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the petitioner is an youngster having no criminal antecedents. He is in custody for the last more than seven months. Investigation in the case is completed. Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The grounds of arrest were not made known to the petitioner in the language known to him. The same amounts to violation of the constitutional rights guaranteed to him in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRABIR PURKAYASTHA VS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) - (2024)8 SCC 254, and the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in W.P.(Stamp) No.17029/2024 (Sachin Mahipati Nimbalkar Vs The State of Maharashtra) disposed of on 23.10.2024.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP has seriously opposed the petition. He submits that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence and as a result, three minor girls have suffered grievous injuries. He submits that one amongst the three, has suffered permanent disability as a result of the heinous crime -4- NC: 2024:KHC:45392 CRL.P No. 10877 of 2024 committed by the petitioner. The injury suffered by the minor girls has caused scar on their body as well as on their mind. Petitioner hails from Kerala State, and in the event, he is enlarged on bail, he is likely to flee away from justice. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. FIR in the present case has been registered against the petitioner on the basis of the first information received from the Lecturer of the Pre-University College in which the three victim girls were studying. Perusal of the averments found in the first information would reveal that the incident in question had taken place inside the campus of the Pre-University College and the petitioner had entered the campus wearing the college uniform, carrying a bottle of acid and he had thrown the acid which he had carried on the victim girls.
7. The material on record would go to show that the petitioner was chased and apprehended by the other students of the College immediately after he committed the crime. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that since CW-2 who is one of the victims in the present case had refused the proposal of the petitioner and she was ignoring him, he had decided to teach -5- NC: 2024:KHC:45392 CRL.P No. 10877 of 2024 her a lesson and after purchasing 500 ML of sulphuric acid in his native place, he had traveled to Kadaba in Dakshina Kannada District and on 04.03.2024, when CW-2 was along with CW-3 & CW-4 who are her friends and also the victims in the present case, the petitioner splashed the sulphuric acid towards CW-2 from the bottle which he had carried, and as a result of the same, CW-2 and her friends CW-3 & CW-4 who were along with her, suffered grievous injuries on their face and other parts of the body.
8. The wound certificate of all the three victims in the present case would go to show that they have suffered grievous injuries and the Trial Court has observed that the disability certificate of CW-2 would go to show that she has suffered permanent disability. It appears that the victim girls have also suffered permanent scars on their face and body as a result of the acid burn.
9. Petitioner has committed a heinous offence and as a result, three minor girls who are victims in the present case, are made to suffer life long.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:45392 CRL.P No. 10877 of 2024
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously submitted that the grounds of arrest that was served on the petitioner was in Kannada language which is not known to the petitioner, and therefore, his rights guaranteed under Articles 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India is infringed.
11. In Prabir Purkayastha's case supra and also in Sachin Mahipati Nimbalkar's case supra, the grounds of arrest was not served on the accused, and therefore, it has been held in the said cases that the same violated the rights guaranteed to the petitioner, and accordingly, petitioners/accused in the said cases were granted bail. In the case on hand, the grounds of arrest was served on the petitioner immediately after his arrest. The grievance of the petitioner is that the same was in Kannada language which the petitioner is not able to read and write.
12. In Prabir Purkayastha's case on which reliance has been placed in Sachin Mahipati Nimbalkar's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the grounds of arrest in writing must be informed to the accused conveying him the basic facts on which he has been arrested so as to defend -7- NC: 2024:KHC:45392 CRL.P No. 10877 of 2024 himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Therefore, the purpose of informing the arrested accused about the grounds of arrest is to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail.
13. In the present case, the grounds of arrest has been undisputedly served on the petitioner immediately after his arrest. In Prabir Purkayastha's case supra, it was noted by the Supreme Court that the grounds of arrest was not served on the accused or on his counsel before passing the order of remand which vitiated the arrest. However, in the case on hand, since the grounds of arrest was already served on the petitioner, the same was very much available for his advocate to defend him, and therefore, the judgments in Prabir Purkayastha's case supra and Sachin Mahipati Nimbalkar's case supra, on which reliance has been placed by the Counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
14. In addition to the same, in the present case, the petitioner has been apprehended within the campus of the institution in which he had committed the crime, by the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:45392 CRL.P No. 10877 of 2024 students of the institution immediately after the petitioner committed the crime and tried to escape. Therefore, the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that supply of grounds of arrest to the petitioner in a language not known to him, has violated his guaranteed under Articles 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India cannot be appreciated and the same is liable to be and is accordingly rejected.
15. Considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner inside the premises of an educational institution in the presence of students and teachers, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail at this stage cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK