IMPORTANT POINT
An order of anticipatory bail is granted in anticipation of arrest.

ORDER

Ramachandriah, J. - Petitioner is one of the several accused in Crime No. 158/90 registered at Chittakula Police Station in U.K. District for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148. 324, 326, 302 and 427 read with Section 149,I.P.C. The said case is still under investigation. The prosecution has been able to apprehend only 3 out of about 20 to 25 persons mentioned as the persons who had committed the above mentioned offences in the evening of 7-11-1990 as the other accused persons including the petitioner are keeping themselves out of the reach of the Police.

2. Apprehending his arrest and detention in custody in Crime No. 158/90; the petitioner filed an application under Section 438, Cr. P.C. for anticipatory bail in the Court of the Sessions Judge, U.K. District at Karwar (for short 'the Sessions Judge'). It was registered as Cr. Misc. No.27/90. By order dated 21-11-1990 learned Sessions Judge has rejected the prayer of the petitioner by accepting the prosecution version that the petitioner is likely to abscond and even indulge in similar acts of violence alleged against him having regard to the fact that he is a very influential person and he is the driving force behind the offences committed by bootleggers in that area.

3. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court with a fresh bail petition under Section 438, Cr. P.C. for anticipatory bail.

4 The said prayer of the petitioner is strongly opposed by the respondent-State for the reasons stated in their II-page objection statement.

5. Sri. M.V. Devaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner read out the contents of the complaint of Ullas Nagesh Murdeshwar on the basis of which Crime No.158/90 is registered and submitted that the offence under Section 120-B, IPC is subsequently introduced as the said offence was not mentioned at the time of registering Crime No. 158190. He also submitted that out of 5 cases mentioned in paragraph-14 of the objection statement filed by the State, petitioner is accused only in Crime No. 307/90 registered for offences under Sections 143,147,148,353 and 188 read will. Section 149, IPC. He further contended that the petitioner's name is falsely mentioned in the complaint at the behest of his opponents. He further submitted that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail by imposing stringent conditions on him as he is a very respectable person in the locality and there is no likelihood of his jumping bailor tampering with the prosecution evidence.

6. On the other hand, Sri. K.H.N. Kuranga, learned State Public Prosecutor; referred to the allegations made against the petitioner in paragraphs 8 to 11 and 17 of the objection-statement filed by the State. He further submitted that it is too premature to say that the petitioner has nothing to do with Crime Nos. 308 to 311/90 mentioned against S.I. Nos. 2 to 5 in paragraph-14 the objection-statement as the investigation in the said cases is still in progress. He also referred to the allegations made against the petitioner in paragraph-21 of the objection statement in which it is stated that another incident took place at Kadira village coming under Mallapur Police Station limits at 11 a.m. on 8-11-1990 in respect of the incident in which the accused person3 trespassed into an arrack shop of Excise contractor and caused damage to his shop and also looted money to the tune of Rs. 2,250/- and Crime No. 15190 is registered at Mallapur Police Station for offences under sections 395 and 427. IPC and investigation is pending. He also invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the objection statement to the effect that the petitioner is a powerful and influential politician and he is bringing all sorts of political pressure on the Investigating Agency and other Government machinery in order to deter them from proceeding with the investigation and he is intimately connected with the bootleggers who used to visit Police Station and Excise Office