Allowed

Smt Devaki v. State by Halasuru Gate Police

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2021CRL.P/1475/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., enlarging the petitioner on anticipatory bail in case of her arrest. The court imposed conditions to ensure appearance and prevent tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is ordered enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.137/2019, subject to appearance before IO within 15 days, furnishing a bond of Rs.2,00,000 with sureties, and

Smt Devaki Vs State by Halasuru Gate Police — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1475 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SMT. DEVAKI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D/O LATE.RAJU PILLAI W/O SRI. ETHIRAJ.V

¶9

WORKING AS UPPER DIVISION CLERK DEPARTMENT OF MECHNICAL ENGINEERING INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE BENGALURU AND RESIDING AT: NO.B-38, NEW STOP QUTRASS I.I.S.C CAMPUS, BENGALURU-12

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S. NAGESH, ADVOCATE(PH))

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE BY HALASURU GATE POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE REP. BY CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT CELL PALACE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. H.R. SHOWRI, HCGP FOR R1(PH)

¶17

SRI. C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING THIS COURT TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN CR.NO.137/2019(C.C.NO.11615/2020) REGISTERED BY HALASURGATE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 196, 198 AND 420 OF IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.137/2019 of Halasur Gate Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 198, 196 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Smt.Lakshmidevamma.L.

¶23

Heard Sri.S.Nagesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.R.Showri, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and Sri.C.Jagadish, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶24

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶25

that the petitioner is the sole accused. She is innocent and

¶26

¶27

law abiding citizen. She has not committed any offences as alleged. She has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. There was no misrepresentation or false information provided nor there is concoction of documents. The caste of the petitioner was mentioned in the school records by her father when she was admitted to the school. Initially the District Caste Verification Committee had issued Sindhutva Certificate during the year 2003. On the basis of these records, subsequently the petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Clerk in Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru. Recently on 31.07.2021 she retired on attaining superannuation. In the mean time, the informant lodged the false complaint against the petitioner and on the basis of such complaint; the District Caste Verification Committee has passed an order and subsequently recalled the Caste Certificate that was issued in favour of the petitioner. The said order has already been challenged before this Court by filing WP No.12923/2021. In the mean time, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, Bengaluru filed a complaint, on the

¶28

¶29

basis of which FIR was registered. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. The petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and she is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice.

¶30

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The petitioner, however appeared before the investigating officer. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, she may never turn up before the Investigating Officer and she may abscond or may commit similar offences, threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner is not

¶31

¶32

entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶34

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶35

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶36

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶37

R E A S O N S

¶38

The materials on record prima-facie discloses

¶39

the evidence against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Admittedly, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Even after grant of anticipatory bail, if the investigating officer requires the presence of the petitioner, he may call upon the petitioner and conduct

¶40

¶41

further investigation if necessary. In that event, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶42

Accordingly, I answer the above point in

¶43

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The petition is allowed.

¶46

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.137/2019 of Halasurgate Police Station.

¶47

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on her appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge her on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶48

¶49

a. The petitioner shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶50

b. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences;

¶51

c. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and

¶52

d. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Smt Devaki v. State by Halasuru Gate Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Devaki v. State by Halasuru Gate Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Abhishek N Vs State of Karnataka

Vignesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesha Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Ramaiah Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Ganesh @ Gani Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniraju B Vs State of Karnataka