Allowed

K. Narayana Reddy S/O K Hanumantha Reddy v. the State by Police Inspector

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2021CRL.P/100500/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed four bail petitions filed by accused persons facing charges under various sections of the IPC. The court held that detention would amount to pretrial punishment due to lack of incriminating evidence and medical records, ruling that suitable bail conditions could prevent potential repeat offences. The petitions were allowed with a bond of Rs. 2,00,000.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be enlarged on bail by executing a bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- each with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding no similar offences, no witness tampering, and court appearance

K. Narayana Reddy S/O K Hanumantha Reddy Vs the State by… — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100496/2021

¶6

c/w CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100497/2021 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100500/2021 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100507/2021

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100496/2021:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. NAGARATHNA W/O K. NARAYANA REDDY, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: DOMESTIC WORK, R/O: RAMANJINEYA NAGAR, COWL BAZAAR, NEAR BELAGAL CROSS, BELLARI-583101.

¶10

SMT. SWETHA W/O J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: DOMESTIC WORK, PRESENTLY RESIDING IN A PORTION OF HOUSE BEARING DOOR NO.10, D-BLOCK, VEERANAGOUDA COLONY, BESIDES BALLARI CLUB, BALLARI-5483101.

¶11

…. PETITIONERS (BY SRI: T. HANUMAREDDY, ADV.)

¶12

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR, COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION, BALLARI-583101, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD, DHARWAD.

¶15

.... RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI: RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP; SRI: GOPAL KRISHNA, ADV. FOR COMPLAINANT)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF Cr.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/A3 AND A4 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.20/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 143, 427, 448, 323, 324, 354, 392, 307, 504 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION, BALLARI AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC AT BALLARI.

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100497/2021:

¶19

BETWEEN:

¶20

K. VISHWANATH REDDY S/O K. HANUMANTHA REDDY, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: LAB ASSISTANT, VIMS BALLARI, R/O NEAR BELAGAL CROSS, CANTONMENT, BALLARI-583101.

¶21

…. PETITIONER

¶22

(BY SRI.T. HANUMAREDDY, ADV.)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR,

¶25

¶26

COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION, BALLARI-583101, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD, DHARWAD.

¶27

.... RESPONDENT

¶28

(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP; SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA, ADV. FOR COMPLAINANT)

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF Cr.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.20/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 143, 427, 448, 323, 324, 354, 392, 307, 504 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION, BALLARI AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC AT BALLARI.

¶30

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100500/2021:

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

K. NARAYANA REDDY S/O K. HANUMANTHA REDDY, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS PHOTOGRAPHER AT VIMS, BALLARI, R/O: RAMANJINEYA NAGAR, COWL BAZAAR, NEAR BELAGAL CROSS, BALLARI-583101.

¶33

…. PETITIONER

¶34

(BY SRI.T. HANUMAREDDY, ADV.)

¶35

AND:

¶36

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶37

¶38

BY POLICE INSPECTOR, COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION, BALLARI-583101, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD, DHARWAD.

¶39

.... RESPONDENT

¶40

(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP; SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA, ADV. FOR COMPLAINANT)

¶41

¶42

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100507/2021:

¶43

BETWEEN:

¶44

DR.VINAYAKA PRASANNA S/O LATE SURYA NARAYANA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC MEDICINE, VIMS, R/O: PLOT NO.18, SHIVAGIRINAGAR, SIRUGUPPA ROAD, HAVAMBHAVI, BALLARI-583101.

¶45

…. PETITIONER

¶46

(BY SRI.T. HANUMAREDDY, ADV.)

¶47

AND:

¶48

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶49

¶50

BY POLICE INSPECTOR, COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION, BALLARI-583101, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD, DHARWAD.

¶51

.... RESPONDENT

¶52

(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP; SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA, ADV. FOR COMPLAINANT)

¶53

¶54

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

¶55

COMMON ORDER

¶56

The petitioners in Criminal Petition

¶57

No.100496/2021 are accused Nos.3 and 4, petitioner in Criminal Petition No.100497/2021 is accused No.5, petitioner in Criminal Petition No.100500/2021 is accused No.2 and petitioner in Criminal Petition No.100507/2021 is accused No.1 and they are seeking grant of regular bail under Section 439 of

¶58

¶59

Cr.P.C. in Crime No.20/2021 of Cowl Bazar Police Station, registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 427, 448, 323, 324, 354, 392, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of Indian penal code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for the sake of brevity), on the basis of first information lodged by the first informant-Smt.Jyoti J.

¶60

The brief facts of the case are that, the informant lodged the first information with Superintendent of Police, Ballari on 18.02.2020 stating that accused Nos.1 to 5 break open the door of her house and also assaulted her. They had lodged false complaints and caused both mental and physical harassment. They were also giving life threat to her. It is stated that the informant and her brother are Engineers by profession and were working in a Foreign Country. Her mother was residing in Door No.10, ‘D’ Block, behind Ballari club, Veeranagouda Colony, Ballari. The brother of the informant married accused No.4 herein on 22.02.2018. After the marriage, the couple had been to Foreign Country

¶61

¶62

and stayed there for some time. After three months, accused No.4 came back to India. She delivered a baby girl on 25.12.2018. In the meantime, the informant also came back to India and started residing with her mother. There was matrimonial discard between the husband and wife. Accused No.1 herein had intervened in the said dispute and was threatening the complainant and other family members. Accused No.4 filed the complaint against the present complainant and others on 18.12.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The said matter is still pending. Accused No.3 threatened to seize the passport of the informant. In the meantime, the brother of the informant filed a petition seeking dissolution of his marriage with accused No.4 on 06.12.2019. It is stated that the informant and accused No.4 are residing in different portions of the same building.

¶63

The informant stated that on 04.11.2019 the accused illegally trespassed into her house by

¶64

¶65

breaking open the door and criminally intimidated her and her mother. In this regard, Crime No.208/2019 was registered in Cowl Bazaar Police Station on 11.12.2019. Since the police did not took any action, the accused were emboldened. On 15.01.2020, the accused assaulted the informant in the presence of police. Again, police complaint was registered in Cowl Bazaar Police Station and Crime No.10/2020 was registered on 15.01.2020. But still, police did not take any action in the matter.

¶66

It is stated that on 18.01.2020 in between 3.30 p.m. to 4.40 p.m., accused No.1 criminally trespassed into the house of the informant and tried to strangulate the neck of the mother of the informant. A complaint is lodged with Cowl Bazaar Police to initiate legal action against him. On 24.01.2020, at about 6.40 p.m., accused No.1 came from behind and abused the informant in filthy language while she was parking two wheeler in front of her house. Accused Nos.2 to 4 and the cousin of accused No.4 came and assaulted the informant black

¶67

¶68

and blue and caused injuries, snatched iPhone-6 mobile from her hand. They also snatched her gold chain weighing 30 grams and her hand purse. This high handed act of the accused was recorded in CC TV camera. But even then, the police were not ready to take any action. Therefore, she requested the Superintendent of Police, Ballari, to take necessary action and to initiate action against the accused for their criminal acts.

¶69

It is stated that no action was initiated by the police against the accused. Writ Petition No.146559/2020 was filed before this Court by the informant seeking direction to the Police at Ballari to register the case and to initiate legal action. It is stated that the said Writ Petition came to be allowed and the Jurisdictional Police was directed to consider the representations dated 29.03.2020, 04.04.2020, 17.04.2020, 25.04.2020, 05.05.2020, 06.05.2020 and 07.06.2020, and to initiate appropriate action against the accused. Thereafter, the present Crime No.20/2021 was registered by Cowl Bazaar Police,

¶70

¶71

Ballari, against accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the above said offence.

¶72

Heard Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Ramesh B.Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondentState who were physically present before the Court and Sri.Gopal Krishna, learned counsel for complainant through video conferencing. Perused the materials on record.

¶73

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that accused No.4 is the wife of brother of the informant. There is matrimonial dispute between the two and the brother of the informant had filed a petition seeking dissolution of his marriage with accused No.4. Accused No.4 is residing in a portion of her matrimonial house. The informant being the sister of her husband, tried to oust accused No.4 from the said portion of the matrimonial house and is indulged in filing criminal cases one after the other. She had even filed Civil Suit in O.S.No.3/2020 before the learned II Additional Civil Judge, Ballari, seeking

¶74

¶75

injunction in respect of the entire property describing the same as schedule ‘A’. The Trial Court in the said suit passed the Order dated 11.02.2020 holding that accused No.4 herein, who is the defendant in the suit, is in possession and enjoyment of ‘C’ schedule property, which is a portion of ‘A’ schedule property and refused to grant temporary injunction in respect of the said ‘C’ schedule property. However, injunction was granted only in respect of ‘B’ and ‘D’ schedule properties. Inspite of that, complainant is in the habit of filing the complaints one after the other against these accused, without any basis.

¶76

Learned counsel submitted that on 03.02.2020, the informant said to have lodged first information with the Superintendent of Police, Ballari, against two unknown persons stating that on 24.01.2020 at about 6.40 pm, when she was near her house, two unknown persons came and snatched the mobile phone and therefore, she requested the police to register a case and to trace the culprits.

¶77

¶78

On 18.02.2020, the informant is said to have lodged similar complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Ballari, against accused Nos.1 to 5 alleging in detail regarding the so-called commission of the offence by the accused and also stating that on 24.01.2020 at 6.40 p.m., while she was parking her two wheeler near her house, accused No.1 came from behind, abused her in flighty language and insisted to vacate the house. All the accused came and assaulted the informant and her mother, snatched iPhone-6 mobile and also snatched 30 grams of gold chain etc. and these high handed acts are recorded in CC TV camera. Therefore, she again said to have requested the Superintendent of Police to register the case and to take legal action. It is stated that the said complaint was referred by the Superintendent of Police, Ballari, to the Dy.S.P., for enquiry. Learned counsel submitted that the Dy.S.P. after holding full fledged enquiry, filed his report dated 28.06.2020 stating that since the parties are having several dispute between them,

¶79

¶80

series of complaints are being filed alleging commission of the offence and the allegations made in the complaint filed by the informant could not be substantiated during such enquiry. The said report was communicated to the informant herein.

¶81

It is stated that on 05.03.2020, the informant again lodged a complaint with the Inspector General of Police, Ballari, Director General of Police, Ballari and so many other persons alleging that accused Nos.1 to 5 are involved in the commission of offence and again referred to the incident said to have taken place on 24.01.2020 at 6.40 p.m. and stated that the accused stabbed on her hand and caused injuries, abused her in filthily language and criminally intimidated, kicked and pulled her hair. It is also stated that accused forcibly snatched her iPhone-6, gold chain, her wallet containing debit card, credit card and cash of Rs.5,000/-. Thereafter, a private complaint was filed before the learned II Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division and JMFC, Ballari, against these accused

¶82

¶83

Nos.1 to 5 in respect of the very same incident dated 24.01.2020 said to have occurred at 6.40 pm, and it is alleged that the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 320, 324, 354D, 307, 358, 378, 385, 386, 441, 442, 447, 504, 509, 427, 506, 201 and 204 read with 34 of IPC and requested the Court to take cognizance of the offences. It is stated that the said PCR is still at the initial stage.

¶84

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the informant herein is in the habit of filing the complaint on daily basis with the Superintendent of Police, without approaching the police station concerned, and making false allegations. He submits that in respect of the incident said to have taken place on 24.01.2020, the informant filed four different complaints on four different dates, making different allegations. Learned counsel submitted that since there is matrimonial dispute between the brother of the informant and accused No.4 and since the petition for

¶85

¶86

divorce is pending and since accused No.4 filed a complaint against the informant and others under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, false allegations are being made against the petitioners.

¶87

Learned counsel submitted that accused No.1 is the Medical Officer working as Assistant Professor in VIMS, Ballari, and not related either to the informant or to other accused. Accused No.4 is the sister-in-law of the informant, accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of accused No.4 and accused No.5 is her uncle. All the family members are roped in by the informant making false allegations. Accused No.1 was apprehended on 08.02.2021. Accused No.2 was apprehended on 02.02.2021, accused No.5 was apprehended on 04.02.2021 and accused Nos.3 and 4 were apprehended on 07.02.2021. Since then, they are in judicial custody. They are not required for interrogation. The investigation is already completed. No incriminating materials were recovered at the instance of present petitioners. The informant has not sustained any injuries in the so-called incident.

¶88

¶89

No medical or other records are forthcoming to substantiate the allegations made by the complainant. There is absolutely no substance in the allegations made in the multiple complaints. Under such circumstances, the detention of the petitioners would amount to pretrial punishment.

¶90

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, it is the contention of learned High Court Government Pleader that there are in all 8 cases registered against accused No.1 during 2020 and 2021. 11 cases are registered against accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 during 2019 to 2021. If they are enlarged on bail, they may commit similar offence and the life of the informant and her mother will be in danger. But the cases referred to by the learned High Court Government Pleader are all relating to similar complaints lodged by the informant making similar allegations against these petitioners. Apart

¶91

from that, there are no other allegations and no other criminal complaints registered against these petitioners. It is stated that all crime numbers are

¶92

¶93

registered deliberately by the Police on the apprehension that the informant might complain against them to the Higher Officers. Therefore, there is no substance in all these criminal complaints registered against the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that accused No.4 is a lady and she is having a child aged 2 years.

¶94

Learned counsel submitted that informant filed Writ Petition No.146559/2020 before this Court seeking direction to the jurisdictional police to register a case and accordingly, the present FIR came to be registered. Even contempt petitions were moved against the police officers only to pressurize them to register all baseless complaints and to detain these petitioners in custody. Even though several allegations are made against these accused, there is absolutely no basis for the same. On the other hand, the informant is harassing these accused, especially accused No.4 who lives with her small child in a portion of the building where the informant resides. Detention of these petitioners in custody would

¶95

¶96

amount to pretrial punishment. All the petitioners are the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the petition and they are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶97

Per contra , learned High Court Government

¶98

Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the present petitioners for having committed the offence. Even though the incident had taken place on 24.01.2020, the investigation is still under progress. These petitioners are required for interrogation. Looking to the allegations made and also looking to the long standing dispute between the parties, there is every likelihood of petitioners committing similar offences. He also submits that these petitioners are the habitual offenders as several cases were registered against them. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶99

¶100

Learned counsel representing the

¶101

complainant appeared through video conference and submitted that the police are not taking any action against the accused. Only after approaching this Court by filing writ petition, the present FIR came to be registered and the petitioners were apprehended. The investigation is still going on. The informant was given security with one armed gunman. But now it has already withdrawn by the police. The contempt petition is also filed against the police officials. From all these facts and circumstances and also the subsequent developments that are taken place, it is clear that the life of the informant and her family members is in danger and their life and property are to be protected. Therefore, detention of these petitioners in custody is very much necessary and prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶102

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsels for both the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is:

¶103

¶104

“Whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶105

My answer to the above point is in the

¶106

‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶107

REASONS

¶108

Voluminous materials including CDs and

¶109

DVDs are produced before this Court. From the submissions made by the learned counsels and the materials produced before the Court, it is clear that there are civil and criminal matters instituted against each other. However, the order dated 11.02.2020 passed on I.A.II in O.S.No.3/2020 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge, Ballari, disclose that the Civil Court has held that Schedule ‘C’ property is in possession of accused No.4, who is the wife of brother of the present informant. However, in respect of Schedule ‘B’ and ‘D’ properties described therein, temporary injunction is granted in favour of the informant herein. Therefore, it is clear that accused No.4 and the informant are residing in different portions of the same building

¶110

¶111

and there used to be frequent quarrels between the two. Both are relying on CC TV footages/photos taken on the passage leading to the building and series of complaints are being lodged against one another.

¶112

Admittedly, the brother of the informant filed a petition seeking dissolution of his marriage with accused No.4. Similarly, accused No.4 lodged a complaint under the provision of Domestic Violence Act, against the present informant and other family members. All these developments un-mistakenly go to show that both the parties are bent upon making allegations and counter allegations against one another and filing complaints on each other.

¶113

Coming to the allegations made in the present complaint, it is seen that initially the first information dated 03.02.2020 was filed before the Superintendent of Police by the informant herein regarding the incident dated 24.01.2020 that had taken place on 6.40 p.m., near her house. She alleged that two unknown persons came and snatched

¶114

¶115

her mobile phone. It is stated that the said complaint was not registered by the Police.

¶116

Again on 18.02.2020, she lodged another complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2 with the Superintendent of Police, Ballari, making specific allegation against them and also narrating the incident dated 24.01.2020 that had occurred at 6.40 p.m., stating that it was accused No.1 who came from behind and abused her in filthy language and also other accused came and assaulted her, snatched gold chain, hand purse etc., She also referred to the order of injunction as stated above which is dated 11.02.2020. It is stated that the complaint was referred to the Dy.S.P. for investigation and to report. It appears that Dy.S.P. filed the report dated 28.02.2020 stating that there are innumerable disputes between the informant and the accused relating to their properties. There are no substance to register the case on the basis of present complaint and the parties are directed to approach the Court to

¶117

¶118

resolve their dispute. As per endorsement dated 20.03.2020, this was communicated to the informant.

¶119

On 05.03.2020, the informant again lodged detailed complaint addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Director General of Police, Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court, Commissioner of KSCPWR etc., against accused Nos.1 to 5 making several allegations and also stating that on 24.01.2020 at 6.40 p.m., while she was near her house, accused Nos.1 to 4 came and assaulted her, stabbed her and caused injures. They snatched her mobile phone, gold chain, cash of Rs.5,000/- Debit and Credit Card etc., and also assaulted her mother. A private complaint is also filed before the learned III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Ballari against the present accused Nos.1 to 5 reiterating all such allegations with respect to the incident dated 24.01.2020. It is stated that the said private complaint is still pending.

¶120

¶121

In view of the above, it is seen that the informant lodged multiple complaints against the accused in respect of the incident said to have taken place on 24.01.2020. Of course, the police have not registered the FIR as required to be done. But as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners while filing the complaints on each subsequent dates, the informant had improved her version regarding the incident dated 24.01.2020. When initially the complaint is against two unknown persons who came in the vehicle and snatched her phone, finally ended in alleging commission of the offence against accused Nos.1 to 5, assaulting her and her mother, stabbing her, snatching her gold chain, cash of Rs.5,000/-, wallet containing debit card, credit card etc., The truth or otherwise of the allegations are to be investigated by the Investigation Officer.

¶122

It is contended that a Writ Petition is filed seeking direction to the Police to register the FIR and the said Writ Petition came to be allowed by this

¶123

¶124

Court upon which, FIR in the present case came to be registered. It is stated that the contempt petition was also filed against the police alleging noncompliance of the direction of this Court. It is stated that one armed gunman was provided as security to the informant. But the same was withdrawn by the police.

¶125

The materials placed before the Court also disclose that accused No.4 is the wife of the brother of the informant and she is admittedly residing in a portion of the house where the informant is residing. Even the Civil Court has not granted injunction in respect of the said portion of the property described as Schedule ‘C’ in the Suit, in favour of the informant.

¶126

In the present case, even though it is contended that the accused have assaulted the informant and stabbed her with an intention to cause her death and also strangulated the neck of her mother, no medical records are made available. The

¶127

¶128

incident in question is dated 24.01.2020. Admittedly, these petitioners were apprehended during the 1^st week of February 2021, on various dates. But they were never taken to police custody. No incriminating materials were recovered at their instance. Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that they are required for interrogation cannot be accepted.

¶129

Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees protection of life and personal liberty of a person, except according to the procedure established by law. When a person is accused of commission of an offence, the Investigating Officer in charge of the case will have the discretion to apprehend him and to seek his custody through the competent Court of law. The accused may be required for interrogation, investigation, enquiry or for identification by the witnesses. The accused may also be detained in custody in order to safeguard the society in general or the victim and the prosecution witnesses in particular. Such detention may be to

¶130

¶131

prevent him from committing similar offence or to ensure his presence before the Investigating Officer or the Court, as the case may be or to protect the witnesses from tampering, threatening or inducing from the accused. But the concept of bail and personal liberty goes hand in hand and the accused will have the right to seek and get released on bail.

¶132

An accused will be presumed to be innocent unless proved to be guilty after full fledged trial held by a Court of law. While considering the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the Court must take into consideration several aspects of the matter, such as 1) gravity and severity of the crime, 2) nature of the accusation and the evidence that are collected, 3) position of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses, 4) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, 5) likelihood of repeating the offence, 6) possibility of the accused tampering, inducing/influencing or threatening the victim/witnesses, 7) possibility of obstructing the course of justice, 8) likelihood of any adverse impact

¶133

¶134

on the society, 9) severity of punishment, 10) criminal antecedents and behaviour of the accused and any other grounds peculiar to the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

¶135

It is settled position of law that at the time of considering the bail application during pre-trial stage, the Court is expected to find out as to whether there are prima facie materials against the accused or not. Mere presence of prima facie case is not a ground to refuse bail. The grant of bail is the rule and its refusal is an exception. Even though granting or refusing to grant bail is the discretion of the Court, such discretion is to be exercised judiciously, with convincing reasons. The Court must strike a balance between the right of an accused as against the right of a victim, claim of the Investigating Officer or the Prosecution. It is to be borne in mind that detention of an accused in prison is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. Seriousness of the allegations or availability of prima facie materials

¶136

¶137

in support thereof are not the only considerations to refuse bail.

¶138

In the present case, the informant and her mother are present before the Court to resist the claim of the petitioners for bail. I can understand their anxiety as they are said to be the victims/injured in the incident. But on consideration of the materials on record, even though serious allegations are made against the accused, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, possibility of inducing or tampering the witnesses, possibility of obstructing the course of justice etc., are not felt. The only apprehension the informant and the prosecution have expressed is that there is likelihood of the accused committing similar offence if they are enlarged on bail. Such apprehension can be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions.

¶139

In view of the discussions held above, I am

¶140

of the opinion that the petitioners are not required to be detained in custody and their detention in custody

¶141

¶142

will amount to pretrial punishment. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions. Hence, I answer the above point in the ‘Affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following:

¶143

ORDER

¶144

The petitions are allowed.

¶145

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.20/2021 of Cowl Bazaar Police Station on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶146

a). The petitioners shall not commit similar offences.

¶147

b). The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶148

c). The petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court as and when required.

¶149

¶150

It is needless to state that, in case, if any of the conditions are violated by the petitioners, the prosecution are at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶151

Sd/JUDGE

¶152

KGK-paras 1 to 9 Vmb- paras 10 till end

K. Narayana Reddy S/O K Hanumantha Reddy v. the State by Police Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Narayana Reddy S/O K Hanumantha Reddy v. the State by Police Inspector

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

Kumar S/O Siddappa Swateppagol @ Godchi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Milind S/O Tanaji Kadolkar Vs Shri. Naveed S/O Nazafali Khatib

Saresh K P @ Suresh S/O K.P.Dinesh Vs Suresh Babu S/O Sathyanarayana Rao

Sri. Kumar S/O Maruti Hanamikki Vs the State of Karnataka

Saddam Hussain S/O Bashasab Pailwan Vs the State of Karnataka

Maruti Balu Kitawadakar Vs the State of Karnataka