Allowed

S. Praveena v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2021CRL.P/3468/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition sought anticipatory bail for the petitioner in Cr.No.213/2020 under IPC Sections 385, 387, and 389. The Court found that while the petitioner was not named in the FIR, investigation materials suggested his involvement. Granting bail with conditions to prevent absconding and witness tampering was deemed necessary as custodial interrogation was not required.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest, directed to appear before I.O. within 15 days, furnish bond of Rs.2,00,000 with sureties, and not tamper with witnesses.

S. Praveena Vs the State of Karnataka by — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3468 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

S.PRAVEENA S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC:ASST.PROFESSOR, JMIT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, CHITRADURGA, R/O SHANTHA NANJUNDESHWARA KRUPA, JCR EXTENSION, 4^TH CROSS, CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SRI.R.B.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶11

… RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI.K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.213/2020 REGISTERED BY CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 385, 387 AND 389 OF IPC.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.213/2020 of Chitradurga Town Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 385, 387 and 389 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Smt.Meera Nadig.

¶18

Heard Sri.R.B.Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Abhijith, learned HCGP for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He submits that the petitioner is working as Assistant Professor in a college at Chitradurga. He has not committed any offences as mentioned in the F.I.R. registered against accused No.1. Investigating Officer issued notice dated 03.03.2021 calling

¶20

¶21

upon the petitioner to appear before him for investigation. Therefore, there is reasonable apprehension of he being apprehended. Petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation, moreover there is absolutely no allegation against the present petitioner. There is in-ordinate delay in filing the F.I.R. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and he 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.

¶22

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. He submits that even though the name of the petitioner is not found in the F.I.R., during investigation, they found that accused No.1 is constantly in touch with the present petitioner. Therefore the petitioner is required for interrogation. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may never turn up

¶23

¶24

before the Investigating Officer or may commit similar offences, threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition

¶25

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

¶26

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for

¶27

grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶28

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

¶29

following:

¶30

R E A S O N S

¶31

The materials placed on record prima facie discloses that, initially F.I.R. is registered only against one accused that is K.M.Chaithra. It is stated that the said accused is already enlarged on bail by the trial Court. However, during further investigation, Investigating Officer collected certain materials which suggest the involvement of the present petitioner. There is reasonable apprehension of the present petitioner being arrested by the Investigating Officer. Admittedly, accused No.1 is already enlarged on bail.

¶32

5 -

¶33

The petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. Even if he is required to be interrogated after taking him into custody, same can be considered after getting orders from the jurisdictional Magistrate. Under such circumstances, I do find considerable force in the contention of the petitioner. Hence, 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.

¶34

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶35

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed.

¶38

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.213/2020 of Chitradurga Town Police Station.

¶39

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of

¶40

¶41

this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶42

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;

¶43

b. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences;

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

gpg

S. Praveena v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Praveena v. the State of Karnataka by

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 Venkatesh G Vs State of Karnataka

Arvind K.T. @ Babu Vs State of Karnataka by

Mohammed Moin Vs State of Karnataka

Praveen Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Nagaraju Vs State by Kunigal Police

Mohammed Aftab Vs State of Karnataka by