Sadiq Shanawad vs State of Karnataka

Rathnakala, J.—Since both these petitions are filed in respect of the Crime No. 231/2014 dated 27.10.2014 registered by the respondent/Police, they are taken up together for disposal.

Both these petitions are filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

Petitioner in Crl. P. No. 101887/2014 is the first accused and the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 102066/2014 is the fifth accused. The allegation is that the complainant had sold the property through real estate agents/accused Nos. 4 and 5 and had paid commission of Rs. 10 lakhs. They were insisting for further sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. On 26.10.2014, the first accused threatened the complainant of dire consequence over phone and insisted for payment of remaining commission of Rs. 5 lakhs. On 27.10.2014, he not only threatened the complainant again over phone, but also sent his aids accused Nos. 2 and 3 to extort money from the complainant. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 trespassed into his house. In the meantime on getting the said information, the Police appeared in the scene and on seeing them, accused Nos. 2 and 3 attempted to escape from the scene of occurrence, however, they were caught.

It is the submission for the petitioners that, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were enlarged on bail by the trial court; Accused No. 1 is in no way connected with the sale transaction of the commission due to accused Nos. 4 and 5 from the complainant. He is not a habitual offender. He has been acquitted from criminal cases on the basis of which the prosecution is trying to brand him as criminal. He is a businessman and a permanent resident of Hubballi. Except the offence under Section 384 IPC and Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, all other offences alleged against him are bailable. The Police are attempting to arrest him, hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail.

It is the submission on behalf of the fifth accused that he is a Press Reporter and a student of Law. If he is arrested both his education and also profession will be interrupted. He was not at all indulged in the alleged offence. Even if the complaint averments are accepted, he is not responsible for the threat put by accused No. 1 to the complainant. Hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader has placed before me the letter addressed by the Police Inspector, Hubli, mentioning the number of cases registered against the first accused. It further submitted that, the first accused was in custody in respect of Crime No. 199/2010 in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was enlarged on bail. During the bail period, he is involved in the present case. Hence, he is not entitled for the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

As regards the fifth accused is concerned, submission of the learned Government Pleader is, in all probability, he is an aid of accused No. 1, which matter needs to be yet probed into; unless he is subjected to custodial interrogation, the Investigating Officer cannot ascertain about his background. Hence, petition of fifth accused also is liable to be rejected.

Having regard to the nature of allegation, as regards the fifth accused/petitioner of Crl. P. No. 102066/2014 is concerned, I hold that there is no impediment to grant anticipatory bail for a limited period, so that the petitioner can make himself available before the Investigating Officer.

As far as first accused/petitioner of Criminal Petition No. 101887/2014 is concerned, he is involved in the present case while he was on bail in another criminal case. Bail cannot be a passport to perpetuate his criminal activities. He has to surrender before the jurisdictional court and move for regular bail.

Accordingly, Criminal Petition No. 101887/2014 is rejected.

Criminal Petition No. 102066/2014 is allowed. The petitioner, in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 231/2014 of Hubli Sub-Urban Police, Hubli, shall be enlarged on bail subject to following conditions:

i) He is granted anticipatory bail for a limited period of four weeks only;

ii) If he is arrested within this period, he shall be enlarged on bail on executing a self-bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the likesum;

iii) Within this period, he shall appear before the concerned court and move for regular bail;

iv) If his custody is required by the Investigating Officer for custodial interrogation, the I.O. may do so with permission of the jurisdictional court;

v) He shall not threaten or prevail upon the complainant or his family members.