Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 852 (KAR)

Sandya v. State

2015-08-04

L.NARAYANA SWAMY

body2015
ORDER : L. Narayana Swamy, J. 1. Case came to be registered in Crime No. 596 of 2013 by Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Is 143, 120(b), 364(A), 344, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code against seven accused. This petitioner is arraigned as accused No. 7. The Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet and the charge that is levelled against accused No. 7 is that the accused 1 to 6 have wrongfully confined the deceased victim for ten days in the house of this accused. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that except this allegation, there are no overt-acts attributable against this petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner is a lady and she has got right for consideration of her case for anticipatory bail. In support of his submission the learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Pawanbala Wife of Prem Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2015 Cr.L.J., 2678 wherein it is held that the Courts has to consider two aspects, viz. (1) reasonable apprehension of witness being tampered with; and (2) the larger interest of public or the State. The learned Counsel seeks for grant of anticipatory bail and also submits that in case of grant of bail, she will have to co-operate with the investigating officer and also appear before the trial Court on all occasions. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits to dismiss the petition, as it is a heinous crime committed by the petitioner and what has been held by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Pawanbala (supra) will not apply to the case on hand. 3. Heard both. Investigation is complete and charge sheet is filed. The overt act alleged against this petitioner is that she has facilitated the accused 1 to 6 to confine the deceased victim for ten days in her house. Ultimately, accused 1 to 6 have taken the victim from the house of accused No. 7 and committed the offence of murder. With regard to the question of right of a woman for consideration of case for grant of anticipatory bail, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Pawanbala (supra), in the Courts of judgment, at paragraph 7 has observed thus: "7. With regard to the question of right of a woman for consideration of case for grant of anticipatory bail, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Pawanbala (supra), in the Courts of judgment, at paragraph 7 has observed thus: "7. ...At the time of granting bail following factors are considered, (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State." 4. It has further held that refusal of bail is the restriction on personal liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Considering the observation in the case of Pawanbala (supra); in the light of the liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution; and also considering the special right provided with respect to a woman; also considering the fact that the charge sheet is filed and the investigation is over, I do not think that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall surrender within one month from the date of this order before the Investigating Officer of the Jurisdictional Police Station; and in such event, petitioner shall be released on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; 2. Petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in conducting investigation; 3. Petitioner shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner; 4. Petitioner shall not indulge herself in criminal activities; 5. Petitioner shall present before the trial Court on all occasions without there being any single failure. Two successful absence of the petitioner will result in cancellation of bail. 6. Prosecution is also at liberty to seek revival of today's order in case of absence of petitioner before the Court.