K.N. Sanappa vs State

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused u/s 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable u/s 454 and 380 of IPC registered by the respondent-police station in Crime No. 164/2011.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 19.12.2011 one Mr. K.V. Annappa lodged a written complaint stating that on same date at about 10.00 a.m. he and his family members left for daily work by locking main door and after finishing his work he came back home at about 1.00 p.m. and saw that someone has broke open the door of almira, which was in bedroom and robbed a sum of Rs. 50,750/- and same day a case has been registered in Crime No. 164/2011 against unknown person for the alleged offences.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the prosecution has not placed prima facie material to show the involvement of the present petitioner for the alleged offences and the respondent-police by furnishing the false information before the Court obtained the body warrant and though the petitioner was released in those two cases pertaining to Crime No. 64/2009 and Crime No. 29/2009. Even then the police only with an intention to take the petitioner into custody, made such false report before the Court and hence, petitioner is entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also made the submission that by imposing any reasonable conditions petitioner may be admitted to bail.

As against this, learned HCGP during the course of his arguments submitted that there are many other cases against the present petitioner and he is habitual offender and though the crime was registered in 2011 he was not at all available to the Investigation Officer inspite of issue of NBW many times. Hence, he submitted to reject the bail petition.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. I have perused the extract of the order sheets pertaining to Crime No. 64/2009 and Crime No. 24/2009 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Somwarpet. As it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that police has made the false submission and obtained the body warrant, prima facie it may be truth but looking to the other materials on record as per the order passed by the Lower Court, the Lower Court has observed in paragraph 7 that there are 13 other cases wherein the petitioner is involved and the certified copy of the order sheets is pertaining to those cases are produced before the Lower Court, which goes to show that petitioner involved other cases. It has been observed by the Lower Court that since 8 months NBW was repeatedly issued by the jurisdictional Magistrate and police are not able to secure his presence. This goes to show that petitioner having the criminal antecedent and has many other cases against him. Therefore, there is every force in the contention of the learned Government Pleader that if he is released on bail petitioner may abscond and even he may tamper the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, looking to the materials on record and the order passed by the Lower Court and observations made therein, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is rejected.