Allowed

Sri.Sanjay Singh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Aug 2021CRL.P/4804/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court enlarged the petitioner on anticipatory bail in a case involving offenses under Section 286 IPC and Section 9B of the Explosive Act, 1884. The court imposed conditions requiring surety bonds and prohibition on tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to furnishing bond, ensuring appearance, and refraining from threatening witnesses.

Sri.Sanjay Singh Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4804 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SANJAY SINGH, S/O RAGHUNANDAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF PUTTAPARTHI VILLAGE, KASBA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK AND DISTRICT: CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207.

¶9

... PETITIONER (BY SRI. TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GUDIBANDE POLICE STATION, DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. (BY SRI. K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

¶14

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.108/2021 OF GUDIBANDE POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALLUR, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 286 OF IPC AND SEC 9 B OF EXPLOSIVE ACT, 1884.

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.108/2021 of Gudibande Police Station, Chikkaballapur, registered for the offences punishable under Section 286 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 9B of Explosive Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Sri.C.R. Ravisankar, Dy.S.P.

¶18

Heard Sri.Tigadi Veeranna Gadigeppa, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader

¶19

¶20

for the respondent-State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶22

submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He is having reasonable apprehension of being arrested by the respondent-Police. The First Information was filed only on suspicion. There are no prima facie materials for having committed the offence. Even if the allegations made in the First Information is to be accepted as it is, 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 he is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court.

¶23

¶24

Hence, he prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice.

¶25

Per contra, learned High Court Government

¶26

Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. It is suspected that the present petitioner had supplied the explosives to various persons, which resulted in a deadly explosion and in respect of the same, a case was registered in Cr.No.34/2021. The petitioner is absconding since from the date of registration of case. Investigation is still at the initial stage. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may never turn up before the Investigating Officer and he may abscond or may commit similar offences, threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner is not

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

My answer to the above point is in the

¶32

‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶33

R E A S O N S

¶34

The materials placed before the Court discloses that the allegations made against the present petitioner is that he might have supplied the explosives to various persons. Admittedly, Cr.No.34/2021 came to be registered by Gundibande Police Station in respect of the explosion that had

¶35

¶36

occurred at Jonnalakunte, within the jurisdiction of Chikkaballapur. Admittedly, the present petitioner is not the accused in the said case. Further, First Information came to be registered on the suspicion that the present petitioner might have supplied the explosives to various persons. Admittedly, charge sheet is filed in Cr.No.34/2021, wherein present petitioner is arrayed as one of the accused. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. However, if the Investigating Officer is desires to enquire the petitioner, reasonable conditions may be imposed to ensure his presence before the Investigating Officer. Hence, 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

¶37

¶38

petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶39

Accordingly, I answer the above point in

¶40

the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petition is allowed.

¶43

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.108/2021 of Gudibande Police Station, Chikkaballapura.

¶44

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

¶45

¶46

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;

¶47

b. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences;

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions mentioned above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

Sri.Sanjay Singh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Sanjay Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apeksha Ashok Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Santhosh K Vs State of Karnataka

Miss. Ramla Shedfa Nancy Vs State by Narcotics Control Bureau

Manjunatha B v Vs State of Karnataka

Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Rohan Khazi Bist Vs State by Rajarajeshwarinagar Police