Venkatesh T @ Venkatesh Gowda vs State Of Karnataka By The Police Of Kamakshipalya, Police Station, Through The State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka, At Bengaluru City & Others

M G Uma, J

The appellant -accused No.3 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.105/2024, of Kamakshipalya Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections-143, 144, 148, 323, 324, 327, 448, 354, 355, 504, 506, 509, r/w. 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section-3(1)(R) & (s) of SC And ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amended Act and Section-55 of J.J. Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Leelavathi.

Heard Sri.Siddharth B. Muchandi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Rajath, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is arrayed as accused No.3. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He is having apprehension of being arrested, therefore, he is before this Court. Serious allegations are made against accused No.1 that he has caused bleeding injury with the machete and no such overtact is alleged against the appellant / accused. But the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application filed by the present appellant without assigning any reasons. The appellant is not having any criminal antecedents. The appellant is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the appeal and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal in the interest of justice.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the appeal submitted that serious allegations are made against the appellant for having committed the offence. Investigation is still under progress. The statement of the victim under Section-164 of Cr.P.C., is already recorded. Under such circumstances, the appellant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail, since the appellant is absconded since the date of the offence. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

REASONS

The offence alleged against the appellant is of serious nature. No specific overtacts is alleged against the appellant. It was accused No.1 who said to have assaulted the victim with Machete and caused bleeding injury. General and omnibus allegations are made against all the other accused that they assaulted the victim. Admittedly, accused Nos.2, 4 to 7 against whom similar allegations are made are already granted anticipatory bail. It is not the case of the prosecution that the present appellant / accused No.3 is having any criminal antecedents. Hence, I am of the opinion that the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail on parity, subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehensions expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the appellant may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No Crime No.105/2024, of Kamakshipalya Police Station.

The appellant is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions:-

a. The appellant shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

b. The appellant shall not commit similar offences;

c. The appellant shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and

d. The appellant shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by him. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.