IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7304/2017 BETWEEN:
Mr. Syed Zulfi Khan S/o Mr. Syed Attaullah Aged about 44 years R/at No.50, Kyathte Camp Kanagalakoppa Thirthahalli Taluk Shimoga District-577 220. ... PETITIONER (By Sri Diwakara K, Adv.) AND:
State of Karnataka By Sub-Inspector of Police Malur Police Station Malur Thirthahalli Taluk Shimoga District-577 220. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr. No.127/2017 of Malur P.S., Shivamogga District for the offences P/U/Ss 353, 332, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 149 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 Sections 353, 332, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.127/2017.
2. The case of the prosecution is, on 9.8.2017 petitioner along with 6-7 daily wage agricultural labourers went to the forest area and was executing planting of arecanut trees along with strengthening of stone fencing, at that time, Range Forest Officer Mr.Rajesh came along with Deputy Range Forest Officer Srideva in a forest jeep driven by its driver by name Danny to the spot. The said Range Forest Officer has stated that when he visited the spot at 3 p.m. he noticed eight persons clearing the forest containing valuable trees and making stone fencing. All these persons were taken to the Range Forest Officer for the purpose of security. They visited the spot again and at that time, they got information that the petitioner herein was taking 8 persons in his car. At that time, the Range Forest Officer made an attempt to stop the vehicle by sitting in his jeep. However, petitioner made an attempt to drive the vehicle on them. They followed the petitioner up to his residence and advised him to send those eight persons with them for which, petitioner flatly denied and abused them and made a gesture of attempting to assault them and further threatened them with dire consequences. On the basis of said complaint, case was registered for the above said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that so far as the alleged encroachment is concerned, the matter is pending consideration before the Unauthorised Cultivation-Encroachment Regularisation Committee of Thirthahalli Taluk. Even as per the complaint averments there are no injuries or attempt of assault made by the petitioner.
5. Per-contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments submitted that the petitioner herein obstructed the government servants in discharging their official duties and tried to run the car over them and thereby, made an attempt to commit their murder. It is also submitted that rowdy sheet is opened as against the petitioner. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also, the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioner.
7. So far as the alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC is concerned, looking to the complaint averments and other materials it is clear that no injuries are caused by the petitioner to the government officials. Even the learned High Court Government Pleader has submitted that there are no such injuries. But regarding the alleged obstruction is concerned, petitioner denied the same and contended that false case has been foisted against him. So far as the allegation of petitioner being rowdy sheeter is concerned, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after registration of this case on 17.9.2017, he has been termed as rowdy sheeter. The offences alleged are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Petitioner has undertaken to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. Therefore, at this stage, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be admitted to anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.127/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish one solvent 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 shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. Petitioner shall 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 bkp