Praksaha @ Dharma Prakasha vs State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor. The petitioner is stated to be accused No. 41. He is implicated in the alleged murder of one BML Krishnappa, who is stated to have been shot to death while being chased in a car and dashing against his car, he was shot to death by accused No. 1, who was assisted by 25 to 30 persons.

Allegation against the present petitioner is that, he had (inspired with the co-accused on the basis of the material that has been gathered by the prosecution. There is no overt act against the petitioner, but the first of the prosecution objection to the petitioner being granted any relief is that he was required for custodial interrogation and since most of the accused are absconding, there is a little clue for the prosecution to proceed against the main accused and therefore, it is essential that the petitioner surrenders before the investigating authorities and assist the investigating authorities in establishing the case. If the petitioner is really innocent, he has nothing to fear and that the investigating authorities would treat him with due regard if it is in fact established by him that he was not in any manner involved in the incident or with the other accused.

Given the fact that the record does not indicate that overt acts being attributed to the petitioner except that he was found along with other accused after the incident in the garden land of accused No. 3 and that makes the petitioner being taken into custody and it is on the apprehension that the petitioner would be taken into custody as is arraigned as accused in a serious matter, petitioner is before this court seeking anticipatory bail.

Learned State Public Prosecutor would raise serious objection to the petitioner being granted any relief and places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Jai Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Another etc., The Apex Court in the very judgment while reiterating the factors and parameters to be considered at the time of addressing an application for anticipatory bail has held that the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before the arrest is made. Therefore, if the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused in the present case on hand is addressed, it cannot be said that the petitioner is the primary accused in the case on hand even according to the prosecution. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case for anticipatory bail.

Hence, the petition is allowed. In the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be enlarged on bail on the following conditions:

(a) The petitioner shall furnish personal bond for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with a solvent surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Court below;

(b) the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating authorities and shall at the first instance go before the investigating authorities and submit himself for interrogation and he can have a Counsel on his behalf present during such interrogation;

(c) the petitioner shall not seek to influence the prosecution witnesses in any manner.