IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G. Uma, J.
Suresha – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 1330 of 2023
Decided On : 18-05-2023
Anticipatory Bail - Grant of Anticipatory Bail - The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, accused Nos. 2 to 4, in a case registered for offences punishable under Ss. 498A, 114, 302, 149 of IPC, based on the allegations that they instigated accused No.1 to commit the offence. The court found that the petitioners, being relatives of accused No.1, were not required for further investigation and may be granted anticipatory bail subject to specific conditions to address the apprehensions expressed by the prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case registered for offences under Ss. 498A, 114, 302, 149 of IPC, based on allegations that they instigated accused No.1 to commit the offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail as they were not required for further investigation and imposed specific conditions to address the prosecution's apprehensions.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to grant of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C.?
Ratio Decidendi: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, considering that they were not required for further investigation and may be granted bail subject to specific conditions to address the prosecution's apprehensions.
Final Decision: The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail subject to specific conditions to address the apprehensions expressed by the prosecution.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.96/2022 of Arakere Police Station, Mandya District, pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C Court, Srirangapatna, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 498A, 114, 302, 149 of IPC, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Sri. Mahendra on 7/7/2022,
2. Heard Sri. Nagendra B., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. H.S.Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 4. They are innocent and law abiding citizens. They have not committed any offence as alleged. They have been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Learned counsel further submitted that accused No.2 is the brother and accused No.3 is the sister of accused No.1. Accused No.4 is the husband of accused No.3 They have not committed any offences alleged. Since they were related to accused No.1, they are falsely implicated in the matter. The petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the Investigating Officer. There is reasonable apprehension of they being arrested. Hence, they are before this Court. They are the permanent resident of the addresses mentioned in the cause-title to the petition and are 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.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. They actively instigated accused No.1 to commit the offence. Investigation is still under progress. The petitioners are absconding since from the date of registration of the case. If they are granted anticipatory bail, they may never turn up before the Investigating Officer and they may abscond or may commit similar offences, threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following:
R E A S O N S
6. The allegations made against the accused are of serious nature. The informant lodged the first information making specific allegations. However, he stated that accused Nos.2 to 4, who are the relatives of accused No.1 have instigated accused No.1 to commit the offence. Admittedly, accused No.1 is already enlarged on bail. It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioners are required for further investigation. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehensions expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioners may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.
7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.96/2022 of Arakere Police Station, Mandya District.
The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on their appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge them on bail subject to the following conditions:-
a. The petitioners shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;
b. The p
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted even in cases involving serious allegations if the circumstances do not warrant custodial interrogation and the accused demonstrate a willi....
The conduct of the accused and the seriousness of the offences are important factors in determining the grant of anticipatory bail.
The court's decision was based on the consideration that the offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and the conditions imposed to address the apprehension of absconding or ....
Anticipatory bail denied due to prior criminal cases and recent FIR registration.
The nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of fleeing from justice, and the impact of grant of anticipatory bail are crucial factors in determining the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for concrete facts and reasonable apprehension for granting anticipatory bail, and the importance of protecting personal liberty under Art....
The absence of prior offenses against petitioners and co-accused's bail status justified anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases involving serious offenses like murder, repeated filing of anticipatory bail may not be appreciable, and the court may consider the a....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.