High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 12 KAR CK 0023

R. Sakru Nayaka vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 23 December 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anand Byrareddy, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 5625 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 514 words

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the counsel for the Petitioner.

2.

The Petitioner is working as Constable at Hanur Police Station. It was alleged by the Assistant Administrative Officer, Chamarajanagar District, to the effect that, the Petitioner while working as above, had obtained financial assistance from the Government towards maternity benefit in favour of one Manjula on 06.10.2006, under the "Arogya Bhagya Scheme" while falsely claiming that she was his first wife Rani Bai and had availed a sum of `40,000/- thereby has caused unlawful loss to the Government. Therefore, a complaint was lodged alleging an offence punishable u/s 420 of Indian penal Code, on 02.11.2010. The incident had allegedly token place on 06.10.2006.

3.

The Petitioner having approached the District & Sessions Court at Chamarajanagar for grant of anticipatory bail, the same has been dismissed on the ground that there is prima facie case against the Petitioner.

4.

The learned Government Pleader having been directed to take notice in the above petition, now submits that, he has received instructions and it is reported by the Additional Superintendent of police to the effect that, the wife of the Petitioner namely, Rani Bai had undergone Tubectomy operation and therefore, was incapable of conceiving and bearing any children.

5.

In the first place, this would clearly indicate that, the Petitioner had falsely indicated one Manjula as his wife; Rani Bai and falsely taken the benefit of the Scheme. Hence there is prima facie case made out against the Petitioner. This is also the opinion formed by the Court of District and Sessions Judge.

6.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, he is innocent of the offence and the offence alleged is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and he is a permanent resident of Dordedoddi Village, Kollegal Taluk and undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed if anticipatory bail is to be granted.

7.

Having regard to the inordinate delay pursuant to which the complaint is lodged and the case is taken up against the Petitioner, it is appropriate and it would be in the interest of justice if the Petitioner is granted anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions:

1) If the Petitioner is arrested in Crime No. 156/2010 of Chamarajanagar Town Police, registered for an offence punishable u/s 420 of Indian Penal Code, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surely for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

2) The Petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

3) The Petitioner shall make himself available for investigation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.

4) The Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without leave of the court.

5) The Petitioner shall approach the court below for regular bail within a period of eight weeks from today. On such application being made, the court below shall consider the application without being influenced by any of the observations made herein.

Subject to the above conditions, the petition is accepted.