IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.2267 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. Shri.V.M. Nagaraju, S/o Munishami Gowda, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Agriculture and the Counselor of Ward No.19 in Vijayapura Town Municipal Council, R/at. Gurappana Mat Street, Vijayapura Town, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, Pin Code-562 103.
2. Shri. A.R. Hanifulla, S/o M.K. Abdul Razak, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture and the President of Jamiya Massedi, R/at: Darga Mohalla, Vijayapura Town, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, Pin Code-562 103.
(By Sri.Muniraj, Advocate) AND The State of Karnataka, By Vijayapura Police Station, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, …Petitioners Represented by SPP., High Court Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II) …Respondent This criminal petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.42/2019 of Vijayapura Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence p/u/s 353 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC.
This criminal petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.42/2019 registered by Vijayapura Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 504 read with 34 of IPC.
3. It is alleged by the complainant Nagaraju, Chief Officer of Town Municipal Council, Vijayapura Town, that after the meeting, as per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, he tried to remove the banners and flex boards kept near the Vijapaura Town Municipal council area through their staff in respect of Badminton tournament. When the Chief Officer tried to remove the banners and flex board, the petitioners tried to assault and abused him in filthy language. Thereafter, the case has been registered by the respondent-Police. The police are making efforts to arrest these petitioners. Hence, this petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence. Even though they have obtained the permission from the Police for conducting the tournament and also paid money to the Contractor for advertisement for three days and a receipt has been issued. There is no other case registered against them. They are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, prays for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned SPP-II appearing for the respondent-State has objected the petition on the ground that there is material placed on record to show that the petitioners have committed the offence and they are absconding from the date of offence.
5. Upon hearing of the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned SPP-II appearing for the respondent-State and perusal of the records, it shows that first petitioner is said to be the Town Municipal Counselor and second petitioner is President of Jamiya Massedi, who is also husband of a Counselor, they are said to be the sponsors for the prizes to the winners of the tournament and their names are said to be printed in the flex board. When the complainant tried to remove the same, the petitioners said to have abused him in filthy language and tried to prevent the complainant in discharging his official duty as Public Servant. The alleged offence is committed on 09.03.2019 and there is no material placed on record to show that these petitioners actually involved in the commission of the said offence, except their names depicted in the pamphlets and flex boards as they are the sponsors to the winners of the tournament. Though, alleged offences are non-bailable, but not punishable with death or life imprisonment. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by imposing certain conditions, if the petition is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed.
The respondent–Police are directed to release the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 2 on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 read with 34 of IPC., registered by the respondent – Police Station in Crime No.42 of 2019, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court;
(ii) Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;
(iii) Petitioners shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;
(iv) Petitioners shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for; and (v) Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within ten days from the date of their arrest by the Investigating Officer and to move regular bail.
Sd/- JUDGE SB