AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Petitioner is accused No. 36 in Crime No. 313/2014 on the file of Nazarbad police station, Mysore City. Investigation is still under progress and offences alleged against all the accused are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 353, 354, 355, 427, 307, 149 of IPC and r/w Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Petitioner who is apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police has filed this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail.
Similar application filed by him before the Fast Track Court, Bangalore, has been dismissed after contest in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6249/2014 on 15.11.2014.
The main allegation against this petitioner is that he was working as a faculty in Administrative Training Institute at Mysore, of which, Smt. Rashmi was the Director. She had taken over the charge as the present Director of ATI, Bangalore. After taking over the charge, she noticed several irregularities and illegalities in the financial management of the institute and according to her this petitioner is also a part of the team engaged in committing serious financial irregularities. Therefore, she had taken certain departmental action against one official working in ATI by name Sri Venkatesh and the said Venkatesh committed suicide in the ATI premises.
The allegation against this petitioner is that, he led a mob of several officials working in ATI and some anti-social elements and raised slogans against Smt. Rashmi, the then Director of ATI and as a result of the same, mob became frenzy and raised objectionable slogans against the Director and in the melee some antisocial elements also joined the officials. The situation went to such an extent that the Director was assaulted and threatened with dire consequences to her life.
Learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the bail application by filing a detailed written objections contending inter alia amongst others that prima facie case is forthcoming against this petitioner''s involvement in the said offence which took place on 15.10.2014 in the premises of ATI at Mysore at about 3.30 p.m. It is contended that the present petitioner is a high ranking official of the Government of Karnataka and he is likely to scuttle further investigation. It is further argued that this petitioner has grudge against the complainant Smt. Rashmi on the ground that she was responsible for the death of Sri Venkatesh. He has argued that this petitioner is absolutely required for custodial interrogation, which is a part of investigation.
Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri Ravi B. Naik has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge at Mysore has granted bail to all those accused who had allegedly participated in the unlawful assembly and who had raised objectionable slogans against Smt. Rashmi and who had allegedly ravished the Director. He has argued that the learned Sessions Judge at Mysore, while disposing of anticipatory bail applications filed by other accused in Crl.Misc. No. 1843/2014 and other connected cases, had an opportunity to view video CD of the offence in question. In paragraphs 17 and 18 of the order dated 17.11.2014 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 1843/2014 and connected cases, the learned Judge at Mysore has observed as follows:
"Para 17: Here, it is relevant to note, whether the petitioners have committed the offences or not have to be looked into at the time of full-fledged trial. At the same time, on perusal of CD. both at video exhibited before Court and the photos furnished along with CD. records, it discloses about heat slogan against the complainant and no such alleged assault finds a place in photos as well as the video CD. prima facie to believe the alleged act. At this stage, it is worthwhile to mention here the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of decisions, which reads that:
"The approach of the Court in the matter of bail is not that for the accused should be detained in the jail by way of punishment before the trial. That the only material consideration in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with the prosecution witnesses and hampering the progress of the case. If there is no prima facie case, then, there is no question of considering the other circumstances, but, even if whether there is a prima facie case is established, the approach of the Court in the matter of bail is not that for the accused should be detained in the jail by way of punishment before the trial."
Para 18. On seeing the CD records produced by the prosecution, it is very clear that the Investigating Office has conducted spot and seizure mahazar and seized the articles and kept in P.F. of the Station. The produced Wound Certificate discloses the complainant has received four simple injuries of injury No. 1 to 4 and the 5th injury is grievous in nature i.e., fracture upto right chin at Gaguivar//1/3rd length. According to the petitioners, they have not committed any offence as alleged against them. The complainant is working in her office even today. So, question of believing the alleged assault against her doesn''t arise. Further, the petitioners have taken contention that they are ready to co-operate with the Investigating Officer in further investigation. The investigation not yet completed. As per the Investigating Officer, he wants to record further statement from the witnesses and there is possibility of again committing similar offences by the petitioners."
While the petitioner is now posted to Joint Director of Social Welfare Department at Bangalore. Since he is working here, he had filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Court of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and it was numbered as Crl.Misc. No. 6249/2014 and the same was assigned to the Fast Track Court-8 at Bangalore City. The learned Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court has dismissed the said application on 15.11.2014 holding that the accused was present at the spot of the incident and he has instigated the crowd to assault the complainant and thereby he had deter the public servants from attending to her duties.
Perused the CD. produced by the learned Government Pleader.
The video CD. is a part of the case diary maintained by the Investigating Officer who is investigating the offence in question. After viewing the video CD, the learned Sessions Judge of Mysore has opined that, the offence as alleged in the complaint did not take place that there were several persons at that time in the premises of ATI. It is a very moot point at this stage as to whether this petitioner was present and instigated other members of the mob to raise objectionable slogans against the ATI Director.
Admittedly the offences are neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life, though Section 307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The persons who had sustained injuries have already been discharged from the hospital and the injuries so sustained were simple in nature. It is a very moot point at this stage as to whether the said attempt was made with a clear object of murdering some of the officials including the Director. Apart from this, major portion of the investigation is already over.
Petitioner is a responsible official working in the Government of Karnataka at Bangalore. He has undertaken to abide by any conditions which may be imposed on him and he would co-operate with the Investigating Officer in conducting further investigation in the present case. In this view of the matter, the apprehension of the learned Government Pleader could be suitably met with by imposing proper conditions.
Hence, the petition is allowed and anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:-
"(i) Petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 313/2014 of Nazarbad Police, Mysore, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the I.O.
(ii) He shall co-operate with the I.O. in conducting further investigation in Crime No. 313/2014.
(iii) He shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
(iv) He shall not involve himself in any criminal activities.
(v) He shall surrender before the I.O. on or before 10.12.2014 without fail.
(vi) He shall attend the respondent police station whenever the investigating officer insists for his presence in order to conduct further investigation.
(vii) He shall attend the respondent police station on every Sunday between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. for a period of at-least one year from the date of his surrender before the Investigating Officer, without fail.
(viii) It is made clear that violation of any one of the condition imposed on him would enable the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail granted by this Court."