IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8374/2017 BETWEEN:
Ganeshram Sirvi @ Ganesh S/o Hariram, Aged about 38 years, R/at Karanji Extension, Malur Town, Kolar District-563130. .. Petitioner ( By Sri Nanjunda Gowda M.R., Advocate ) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By Malur Police, Kolar District, Rep.by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru-560001. .. Respondent ( By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP ) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.2/2017 of Malur Police Station, Kolar District, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of 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 offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station in Crime No.2/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier petitioner was released on anticipatory bail, but there are four conditions imposed while granting the anticipatory bail. The learned counsel further submitted that he complied with all the conditions of the bail order, but so far as condition No.3 is concerned, even for that also, he attended the police station before the concerned Investigating Officer on 13.2.2017. As the Investigating Officer was involved in another case, petitioner was not interrogated on that day and he was told to appear before him on 17.2.2017. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 17.2.2017, petitioner was not well and because of the medical reasons, he has not appeared on that particular day. Hence, the learned counsel submits that only because of that reason, now the bail order has been cancelled by the Court below even though the medical certificate is produced and the reasons are made out. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition making the submission that there is a violation of the conditions of the bail order. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail again this case.
5. I have perused the records of the case and the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioner.
7. No doubt, as per the conditions of the bail order, petitioner has not appeared on 17.2.2017 before the Investigating Officer. But, this is the only day wherein he remained absent. But, previous to that day, i.e., on 13.2.2017, it is his case that he appeared before the Investigating Officer, but in spite of that, he was not interrogated on that day and he was asked to come on 17.2.2017. The petitioner produced the medical records which goes to show that he was not fully well on that day and that was the reason for him to remain absent to appear before the Investigating Officer. On this single act, that too, on medical reasons, when he remained absent, it cannot be said that it is an overt act on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, he has made out a ground which ought to have been considered by the Court below. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, he can be admitted to anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent- police are directed to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.2/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. The 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 bk/