Dismissed

Manish S/O. Beeranna Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2014CRL.P/100600/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held the petition vague as it did not specify the offences allegedly to be booked, amounting to a request for blanket bail unsupported by reasonable grounds for apprehending arrest.

What did the court decide?

Peitioners' prayer for anticipatory bail was dismissed as the petition was bald and did not establish reasonable grounds for apprehension of arrest.

Manish S/O. Beeranna Naik Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2014

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100600/2014

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MANISH S/O. BEERANNA NAIK AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. H NO. 22, VIJAYANAGAR, HUBLI

¶9

BEERANNA S/O. BOMMAYYA NAIK AGE: 68 YEARS, R/O. H NO. 22, VIJAYANAGAR, HUBLI

¶10

SHANTI W/O. BEERANNA NAIK AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O. H NO. 22, VIJAYANAGAR, HUBLI

¶11

RAJESHWARI PRASHANT NAIK AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O. FLAT NO. 304, I FORIA APARTMENT, SARJAPUR ROAD BANGALORE

¶12

PRASHANT SUBRAY NAIK AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: NIL R/O. FLAT NO. 304, I FORIA APARTMENT, SARJAPUR ROAD BANGALORE

¶13

¶14

RAJENDRA BEERANNA NAIK AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BE R/O. BANASHANKRI LAYOUT BANGALORE ... PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI K L PATIL & SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADVS. )

¶16

AND

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH DHARWAD ... RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP.)

¶19

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THESE PETITIONERS IN CASE, IF ANY CASE IS REGISTERED AGAINST THEM BY SMT. ARUNA W/O MANISH NAIK IN HUBLI POLICE STATION OR ANY OTHER POLICE STATION AT YELLAPUR.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State. Perused the records.

¶24

¶25

The petitioners’ herein have approached this

¶26

court for grant of anticipatory bail u/s.438 of Cr.PC without there being any case registered against them by any police.

¶27

The brief factual matrix as stated in the petition are that:

¶28

The petitioner No.1 and one Smt. Aruna are

¶29

husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 15.6.2012. The husband and wife lived together happily for some time. Thereafter, was no cordial relationship between them. In this background, it is alleged that the wife of the first petitioner Smt. Aruna used to threaten the petitioner No.1 by saying that she would file a criminal case against them. By saying so, she went to her parents house in the month of April 2013 and she did not return. All the efforts made by

¶30

¶31

the petitioners to bring her back went in vain. The petitioners apprehending that she may file a case against them, sought for grant of anticipatory bail, in the event if any case is registered by her against them and in the event of their arrest.

¶32

On perusal of the grounds urged in the petition, it is stated that there is every chances of Smt. Aruna filing a case against the petitioners more particularly against petitioner No.1 alleging various offences. Therefore, it is prayed that the court be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the event of any case is registered against them on the complaint by Smt. Aruna wife of the first petitioner Manish Naik in Hubli Police Station or in any other Police Station at Yellapur.

¶33

On perusal of the above said averments in the petition, in my opinion, the petition is very vague.

¶34

¶35

There is no mention of any specific provisions under which, a complaint may be filed against them. Whether under the Dowry Prohibition Act or under any other provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and etc.,. If the court grants anticipatory bail irrespective of the offence on which a complaint may be filed, in my opinion, it amounts to granting of blanket bail.

¶36

It is worth to note a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1980 SC 1632 between Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and another Vs. State of Punjab, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles as to under what circumstances, a bail u/s.438 Cr.PC can be granted in the absence of registration of any case against the petitioners in the following manner:

¶37

“The applicant must show that he has ‘reason to believe’ that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. The use of the

¶38

¶39

expression ‘reason to believe’ shows that the belief that the applicant may be so arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere ‘fear’, is not ‘belief’, for which reason, it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of a vague apprehension that some one is going to make an accusation against him, in pursuance of which, he may be arrested. The grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence, must be capable of being examined by the court objectively, because it is then alone that the court can determine whether the applicant has reason to believe that he may be so arrested. Section 438(1) therefore cannot be invoked on the basis of vague and general allegations, as if to arm oneself in perpetuity against a possible arrest. Otherwise, the number of applications for anticipatory bail will be as large as, at any rate, the adult populace. Anticipatory bail is a device to secure the individual’s liberty; it is neither a passport to the commission of

¶40

¶41

crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations, likely or unlikely.”

¶42

If an application for anticipatory bail is made to the High Court or to the Court of Sessions, it must apply its own mind to the question and decide whether a case has been made out or not for granting such relief. Though filing of First Information Report is not a condition precedent to the exercise of the power u/s.438, the imminence of a likelihood of arrest founded on a reasonable belief on a specific and certain allegations are absolute requirements for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶43

In view of the aforesaid guidelines, if they are applied to the present facts and circumstances of the case, as I have already stated that nothing is stated in the petition that he has got reasonable belief of arrest and also on which offences he may be arrested etc., Therefore, in my opinion, the petition is very bald and

¶44

¶45

on that ground, no anticipatory bail can be granted. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶46

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Manish S/O. Beeranna Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish S/O. Beeranna Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Amlagiris Vs M/S.Mspl Limited

Prema W/O. Nagayya Galagalimath Vs the State of Karnataka

Gangamma W/O. Lakshmipathi Vs the State of Karnataka

G.Mohanakrishnan, (Aged 58 Yrs) Vs the State of Karnataka

Omprakashsingh S/O. Ramdevingh Vs State of Karnataka

Kallappa S/O. Devendra Hachhambali Vs the State of Karnataka