IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100489 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

1.

RAJSHEKHAR S/O. SANGAPPA NOOLVI,

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS,

R/O. APMC YARD, HUBBALLI.

2.

MANJUNATH S/O.SANGAPPA NOOLVI,

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

OCC:AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS,

R/O. APMC YARD, HUBBALLI.

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THROUGH,

APMC NAVANAGAR P.S,

HUBBALLI,

REPRESENTED BY

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BENCH AT DHARWAD.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)

R

2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

439(1)(b) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION

AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2018 PASSED

BY THE V ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI IN CRL.MISC.NO.16 OF

2018.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :

ORDER

This

petition

is

filed

by

the

petitioners

praying to set aside the condition No.2 imposed in

the order dated 27.01.2018 passed by the V

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad

sitting at Hubballi, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.16

of 2018, while the petitioners were enlarged on

bail in Crime No.174 of 2017 of APMC Navanagar

Police Station, Hubballi registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 506, 420 read with

Section 34 of IPC.

2. I have heard Sri.Santosh B.Mane, the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and

3

Sri.Raja Raghavendra Naik, the learned HCGP

appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners submits that the learned Sessions

Judge

while

releasing

the

petitioners

on

anticipatory bail has directed them to offer cash

security of Rs.1,00,000/- each and he submits that

virtually it amounts to denial of bail to the

petitioners. He submits that the petitioners are

ready

and

willing

to

comply

with

all

other

conditions. Hence prays that the condition No.2

imposed by the learned Sessions Judge may kindly

be relaxed.

4.

The

learned

HCGP

submits

that,

considering the nature of allegations made against

the petitioners herein, the learned Sessions Judge

has rightly imposed condition No.2, directing the

petitioners to offer cash security and therefore

submits that the petition may be dismissed.

4

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Keshab

Narayan Banerjee v. State of Bihar reported in

AIR 1985 SC 1666, in an identical situation has

observed that, furnishing cash security virtually

amounts to denial of bail itself.

6. This Court in a decision reported in ILR

2002 KAR 4609 in the case of Kaleem Alias

Kaleem Pasha v. State By Central Police Station,

Bangalore, after relying on a decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Moti Ram v.

State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1978

SC 1594 and the decision in Keshab Narayan

Banerjee’s case (supra) has observed that, order

granting bail should not be an illusory order.

Insistence of heavy cash security or deposit would

amount

to

discrimination

and

Court

should

consider prudently as to the conditions to be

imposed.

5

7. Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the order passed

by this Court in the aforesaid decision is as under:

“5. In the present case, it is to be

considered

whether

the

wording

‘any

conditions’ gives unfettering power to the

Court to impose any conditions literally it

deems fit. As long back as in the year

1978, the Apex Court in the case of Moti

Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported

in AIR 1978 SC 1594 : (1978 Cri LJ 1703)

noted that while granting bail it should

not be an illusory order. The accused to

be released on bail must be able to

comply with the conditions and if the

conditions are like insistence of heavy

cash security or deposit, it would amount

to discrimi