IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2952 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

J MAHANTHESH,

S/O J GANGANNA,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

R/OF NO 830/1, 1ST MAIN,

10TH CROSS,

NITUVALLI ROAD, KTG NAGARA,

DAVANGERE,

PIN -577002. ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI HANUMANTHARAYA C H, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BY C.E.N CRIME POLICE STATION.

CHITRADURGA.

REPRESENTED BY

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

BENGALURU - 560001. ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

****

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL

IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.5/2021 OF CEN

CRIME POLICE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE

P/U/S 66(D) OF I.T.ACT AND SEC.505(1)(B), 507 OF IPC.

2

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING THROUGH PHYSICAL

HEARING:

ORDER

This petition is filed by the accused under Section 438

CrPC seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by

Chitradurga CEN Crime Police Station in Crime No.5/2021 for

the offence punishable under Sections 505(1)(B), 507 IPC

and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2008.

2.

The facts briefly stated in the petition are that on

the complaint by one B.M.Jagadish, the police have registered

the case. The allegations are that the petitioner has

published defamatory article affecting the reputation and

hurting the feelings of the devotees of Sri Jagadguru

Murugarajendra Bruhanmath, thereby, he has committed the

aforesaid offences.

3.

On registering the case, the police officials started

making attempts to arrest the petitioner. The bail petition

3

filed before the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail is

rejected.

4.

It is the contention of learned counsel that the

petitioner has done fair reporting about the order passed by

the Court rejecting the bail of the brother of the Pontiff. The

allegations made in the complaint are false and baseless as

the petitioner is not involved in the commission of the

offences alleged against him. In the event of arrest and

detention, the petitioner would be put to great hardship and

injustice.

5.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader submitted that there are specific allegations about the

offence committed by the petitioner. There are no grounds to

hold that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this

case.

6.

Having

heard

the learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the

4

respondent 3 State, this Court has gone through the records

available at this stage.

7.

Annexure-'D' is the report said to have been

published wherein it is mentioned that the Court has rejected

the bail application filed by the brother of the Pontiff. At this

stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussion and the

same is not permissible while considering the bail application.

8.

The grounds stated in the bail petition and

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner goes to

prove the apprehension of arrest and detention of the

petitioner. While considering the prayer for grant of

anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two

factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair

and full investigation and there should be prevention of

harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the

accused. The offences alleged are not punishable with death

or imprisonment for life. The only objection of the

prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioner

is likely to abscond and interfere with the investigation and

5

the said objection can be set right by imposing stringent

conditions.

9.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting

an