Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 882 (KAR)

Vaterira A. Ganapathy v. State Of Karnataka

2020-05-18

K.NATARAJAN

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Learned HCGP takes notice. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the petitioner/accused is that the respondent Virajpet Town Police registered a case against him in Crime No.14/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 332, 353, 504 and 506 of IPC. It is alleged by the complainant namely, Manjunatha Patteda, who is a lineman working in the K.E.B., that on 05.03.2020, at about 9.00 a.m., the informant went to Moggula Village for Meter reading validation at about 11.00 a.m., and he had been to the house of the accused and after taking the printout of one of the meters, he took out a printout of the I.P. Set Meter and as he was on the verge of delivering the Bills to the petitioner/accused. The petitioner/accused objected to receive the bills on the ground that the bill amounts are exorbitant and the petitioner/accused is said to have abused the complainant/informant in filthy language and slapped him and prevented the complainant from discharging his duty as a Public Servant. Based upon the complaint, the respondent-Police registered the case as stated above and making hectic effort to arrest the petitioner/accused. Thereby the petitioner/accused is apprehending his arrest in the hands of the Police for having committed nonbailable offence. Hence, he has approached II Additional and District Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, sitting at Virajpet, for grant of anticipatory bail which came to be rejected. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated. He is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. The offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment. The age of the petitioner/accused is more than 80 years and he is a senior citizen. Hence prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned HCGP objected to the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner/accused had assaulted the government employee and prevented him from discharging his official duty and he is absconding from the date of commission of offence. He is required for investigation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Hence prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned HCGP objected to the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner/accused had assaulted the government employee and prevented him from discharging his official duty and he is absconding from the date of commission of offence. He is required for investigation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the record goes to show that the alleged offence took place when the complainant/informant went to issue the electricity bill to the house of the petitioner/accused and also for the I.P. Set belonging to the petitioner/accused and the petitioner/accused is said to have objected the bill on the ground of huge amount. At that time the petitioner/accused is alleged to have abused the informant with vulgar language and slapped him. Though the alleged offences are non-bailable, but not punishable with death or imprisonment of life. The offence is triable by the Magistrate and the age of the petitioner/accused is more than 80 years, who is senior citizen. Therefore, by considering the facts and circumstance of the case and by imposing certain conditions, if bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, I pass the following order; The petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The respondent/Police is hereby directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 14/2020, subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. However, for the present, furnishing of surety is dispensed with due to COVID-19 situation. ii) The petitioner/accused shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, he shall move for regular bail before the jurisdictional Magistrate. iii) The petitioner/accused shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of any investigation/recovery. iv) The petitioner/accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.