IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9616/2016 BETWEEN:
SRI. PURUSHOTHAMA S/O SHIVASHANKARA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O BOOVANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK-573 129 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI MADHUSUDHAN M N., ADV.) AND THE STATE BY EXTENSION POLICE STATION HASSAN CITY HASSAN-572 215 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP) THIS CRL. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF Cr.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR. NO.292/2016 OF HASSAN EXTENSION P.S., HASSAN, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 353, 341 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:O R D E R:
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in Crime No.292/2016 registered by Hassan Extension Police Station, District Hassan, for the offences punishable under Section 353, 341 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Sri Madhusudhan M.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per complaint averments allegations against the petitioner is that he has attempted to prevent the Government Officer in discharge of his official duties. It is stated in the summary of the complaint in the FIR that on 04.11.2016, the Secretary of APMC was checking a lorry with ‘Ginger’, and making enquiries with the said lorry driver, the petitioner intervened and tried to assault the Officer on duty. Learned counsel further submits that if the complaint is read in its totality, it does not disclose any case against the petitioner. He has been falsely implicated in the case. He is neither the owner of the lorry nor is the driver, nor the goods in the lorry. In the premise, he prays for allowing of this petition.
3. Learned HCGP opposes the petition.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the State and I have perused the papers.
5. The complaint discloses that whilst the Officers were enquiring about the goods in the lorry, the petitioner herein along with the driver made attempts to assault the Government Officials on duty. The petitioner claims that he is neither the owner of the lorry nor the goods, nor the driver of the vehicle. The offences alleged, upon conviction, entail maximum punishment of two years. The matter is under investigation.
6. In the circumstances, in my view, pending disposal of the investigation, petition merits consideration and deserves to be allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is directed that:
(i) In the event of arrest or voluntary surrender of petitioner in Crime No.292/2016 before the jurisdictional Police or Magistrate on or before 08.03.2017, he shall be released on bail upon his executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer;
(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the further course of investigation and appear as and when called upon;
(iii) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional Police on every 1st and 3rd Sunday of each calendar month between 10 a.m. & 1 p.m till the charge sheet is filed;
(iv) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to prosecution witness or any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or investigating officer;
(v) Petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities; and (vi) If the petitioner violates any one of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
Petition allowed.
BSR Sd/-
JUDGE