AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J
The Applicant is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed on 18/2/2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, South Goa at Margao in Anticipatory Bail Application No.22 of 2012 to the extent it imposes condition nos.(ii) and (iii). These conditions read as under:
(ii) The applicant shall appear before the I.O/P.I./Station Incharge of Hospet Police Station, Bellary District, Karnataka within 15 days henceforth and cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) The applicant shall seek regular bail before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court at Hospet, Bellary within 30 days from the date of this order.
Mr. Diniz appearing on behalf of the petitioner/applicant submits that the application for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest by the Goa State Police machinery was filed in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, had no jurisdiction to impose a condition on the petitioner/applicant for his appearance before the Investigating Officer /Station-In charge of Hospet Police Station in Bellary District of the State of Karnataka. Further, there could not have be any condition imposed on the petitioner/applicant to seek regular bail from the jurisdictional Magistrate''s at Hospet, Bellary.
His submission is that imposition of such a condition is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, . For these reasons the subject conditions be set aside.
Upon notice being issued, the respondents have appeared.
Mr. Ferreira, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 fairly states that the said respondents would have no objection to the deletion of these conditions.
However, the learned Advocate representing the Hospet Police Station/Respondent no.1 states that the said condition has been imposed keeping in mind the requirement of the petitioner/applicant''s presence before the Hospet Police Station. The petitioner/applicant has moved the instant anticipatory bail application with the apprehension of his arrest by the Hospet Police Station in Karnataka and, therefore, the condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge is well within her powers and cannot be said to be in excess of jurisdiction. However, as far as condition no.(iii ) is concerned, it is submitted that the same must be deleted bearing in mind the law laid down by the Hon ''ble Supreme Court.
After having heard the learned counsel at some length and perusing with their assistance the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, I am of the opinion that both these conditions could not have been imposed. It may be that the State Police has not initiated any proceedings nor any criminal case is registered against the petitioner/applicant, but he moved this anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest at the hands of the Goa Police, in view of the registration of a criminal case in the State of Karnataka. It is based on such a apprehension that the application was filed. However, the learned Judge has observed in her order that the Karnataka Police (Hospet police station) were given several opportunities to file an Affidavit or say opposing the grant of anticipatory bail, but it failed to do so nor did it seek any imposition of the condition as has been imposed by the learned Judge.
In such circumstances and finding that a prima facie case is made for grant of anticipatory bail as the dispute between parties being of a civil nature, then, all the more, the learned Judge should not have imposed the subject condition of appearance before the Hospet Police Station. That the Hospet Police Station had enough opportunity to appear before the learned Judge is clear from her order and the finding therein.
Further, the F.I.R is stated to have been registered on 2/01/2012, but from the date of its registration it appears that no attempt was made by the said police station to proceed against the petitioner/applicant nor did it appear before the Additional Sessions Judge, despite being served.
In these circumstances, without examining any larger issue or question, I am of the opinion that the condition no.(ii) could not have been imposed and was really not necessary.
As far as condition no.(iii) is concerned, it is fairly considered that the same could not have been imposed in law. As a result of the above discussion, the petition succeeds. The condition nos.(ii) and (iii) in the order dated 18/02/2012 would stand deleted, but with a clarification that the Hospet police station can proceed in accordance with law and if it desires to arrest the petitioner/applicant for the offences registered, it may adopt such proceedings as are permissible in law including seeking cancellation of the order passed on 18/2/2012. All contentions of the parties in that behalf are kept open and it is clarified that such an application can be made and proceeded without being influenced by the order passed in the Criminal writ petition.