Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2226 (KAR)

Mohammed Imran v. State

2020-11-10

B.A.PATIL

body2020
JUDGMENT B.A. Patil, J. - The present petition has been filed by the complainant (victim) under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to cancel the Anticipatory bail granted in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, sitting at Chintamani in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.61/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 384, 307, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. 2. I have heard Sri. Syed Anser Kaleem, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP for the first respondent - State and Sri.B.Anand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. Petitioner is breeding and rearing sheeps and goats and was intending to construct a house in his village. The accused persons were giving trouble and demanding money from the petitioner-victim in order to make a wrongful gain. On 06.05.2020 at about 6.45 p.m. the respondent along with other accused persons called the victim over the mobile phone and asked him to come to Chinnasandra cross. Because of the fear, he went in his Dio scooter. At that time, the accused persons forced him to pay money. When the victim refused to ail to the illegal demand, the accused persons assaulted the petitioner with lethal weapons and caused serious injuries and a compliant has been registered. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-victim that the respondents by false representation and by giving a statement about the release of the victim from the hospital have obtained the bail, though from the Government Hospital he has been discharged but subsequently, he has been got admitted in various hospitals because of his serious injuries to head and other parts of the body. It is his further submission that without calling and collecting the medical records the trial Court has exercised power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C and has released the respondents on bail. It is his further submission that the injured has suffered serious injuries even as on the date that, he is taking treatment. The learned Sessions Judge without application of mind and without taking into consideration the gravity of the evidence, has granted the anticipatory bail. It is his further submission that this Court is having wide powers to grant the bail as well as to cancel the bail, which has been already granted. The learned Sessions Judge without application of mind and without taking into consideration the gravity of the evidence, has granted the anticipatory bail. It is his further submission that this Court is having wide powers to grant the bail as well as to cancel the bail, which has been already granted. There is a serious lacuna and violation in granting the bail. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to cancel the bail granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader by supporting the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge has submitted that that learned Sessions Judge after considering the factual matrix of the case, has rightly passed the impugned order holding that there are no good grounds to interfere with such order. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that there is a delay in filing the complaint. It is his further submission that the history given in the Government Hospital indicates that the victim has suffered the injuries due to road traffic accident and not because of the assault committed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is his further submission that already investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed and while filing the charge sheet, the original accused Nos.2 and 3 have been given up and in their place two more accused persons have been included. It is his further submission that the respondents have neither violated any of the conditions imposed by the trial Court nor they have again involved in any such offences so as to cancel the bail. If at all this Court feels that some more conditions stringent are to imposed, the same may be imposed as against respondent No.2. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. I Have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. It is not in dispute that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have approached the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura sitting at Chintamani in Criminal Misc.No.61/2020 and the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 05.06.2020 has granted the Anticipatory Bail and released respondent Nos.2 and 3 on bail. 9. 8. It is not in dispute that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have approached the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura sitting at Chintamani in Criminal Misc.No.61/2020 and the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 05.06.2020 has granted the Anticipatory Bail and released respondent Nos.2 and 3 on bail. 9. What are the factors to be kept in mind while considering the bail application relating to heinous offences have been indicated by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chaterjee & another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , wherein by relying on its earlier decisions in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 and in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 , the Hon ble Apex Court has indicated the following factors to be borne in mind while considering the bail application:- i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 10. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Dolat Ram & others Vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 has discussed in detail about the cancellation of bail already granted. It is further observed that if already bail has been granted, it has to be considered and dealt with on different basis. It is further held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for directing the cancellation of bail already granted. This proposition of law has also been subsequently followed by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Subhendu Mishra Vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra & another, (1999) AIR SC 3026 and in the case of Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee Vs. State of West Bengal & another, (2004) AIR SC 4207 . In Dolat Ram s Case (cited supra) at paragraph-4 it is held as under:- 4. Subrat Kumar Mishra & another, (1999) AIR SC 3026 and in the case of Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee Vs. State of West Bengal & another, (2004) AIR SC 4207 . In Dolat Ram s Case (cited supra) at paragraph-4 it is held as under:- 4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice, or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a nonbailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law, let me consider the contention taken up by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-victim that by giving a false representation that the victim has been already got released from the hospital without producing the medical records the anticipatory bail has been taken away from the Court. It is his further submission that the victim is still under treatment and the serious injuries have been caused to the petitioner-victim. It is also contended that the trial Court has exceeded the jurisdiction and has granted the anticipatory bail. It is his further submission that the victim is still under treatment and the serious injuries have been caused to the petitioner-victim. It is also contended that the trial Court has exceeded the jurisdiction and has granted the anticipatory bail. On perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, it has been observed that the offences alleged as against the accused persons are quiet serious, but, however, they are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life and neither the petitioner nor the prosecution has produced any documents to show the nature of the injuries sustained and the nature of the injury alone is not decisive to attract Section 307 of IPC and they have given some idea of injury caused to the injured. 12. By going through the order of the trial Court though it has thought that the injuries suffered by the petitioner are serious, but by taking into consideration the above circumstances, has granted the anticipatory bail. As observed by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Dolat Ram s Case (cited supra) rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted has to be considered and dealt with on different basis. In order to cancel the bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. It has been further observed that generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of the bail are: if there is any interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice, or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on record and the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. On perusal of the factual matrix of the case on hand, no such allegations have been made as against respondent Nos.2 and 3. On perusal of the factual matrix of the case on hand, no such allegations have been made as against respondent Nos.2 and 3. Even it is the specific contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that respondent No.2 have obeyed the conditions imposed by the learned District Judge and had not violated the conditions. Taking into consideration all the above said facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that though the trial Judge ought to have applied its mind while passing the impugned order when it has come to the conclusion that the injuries suffered by the injured is grievous in nature and no documents have been produced either it could have got produced the documents and proceeded to pass the order or that it could have secured the documents and passed the orders. Without taking recourse to that, it has granted bail to respondent No.2. But when the Hon ble Apex Court has clearly given a direction that once a bail has been granted, only if there is a cogent and overwhelming circumstance, the Court can interfere and cancel the bail and in the light of the direction and ratio quoted supra, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a case so as to cancel the bail which is granted by the trial Court. 13. In that light, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.