Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 45 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. Kaisal

2021-01-06

B.A.PATIL

body2021
ORDER : B.A. PATIL, J. 1. I have heard Sri R.D. Renukaradhya, learned HCGP for the petitioner-State. Though the present petition has been listed for first time orders, the same has been taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned HCGP. 2. The present petition has been filed by the State under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. praying to cancel the bail order passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru by order dated 02.03.2020 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 223/2019 in Crime No. 239/2019 of Mangaluru South Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 353, 332, 354, 427, 188 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and also Section 2(A) of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Public Property Act. 3. The gist of the complaint is that despite the imposition of the prohibitory order on 19.12.2019 at about 6.30 p.m. near the Ibrahim Al-Kalil Masjid, Nellikayi Road, Mangalore Town about 200-300 muslim unlawful assembled and were shouting slogans against the Government, when the police officials tried to disburse, they started pelting stones. As a result of the same, some of the officials sustained injuries. Subsequently, the said mob did not disbursed and they started pelting stones, soda bottles and caused injuries to the police men and damaged the police vehicles and property nearby the said place. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered. 4. It is the submission of the learned HCGP that even though there is prima-facie material as against the petitioners for having involved in the said crime, without assigning any good reasons, the trial Court has exercised the discretion and has granted bail. It is his further submission that damage to the public property caused is considered to be serious offence, the trial Court without looking into the said aspect, has granted bail. It is his further submission that the order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set at naught and bail granted is liable to be cancelled. It is his further submission that the custodial interrogation of the accused persons was very much necessary. Without considering the objections filed by the Public Prosecutor, the trial Court has granted bail. It is his further submission that the order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set at naught and bail granted is liable to be cancelled. It is his further submission that the custodial interrogation of the accused persons was very much necessary. Without considering the objections filed by the Public Prosecutor, the trial Court has granted bail. It is his further submission that grant of bail is not a matter of right that it has to be looked into on the merits of the case. On the basis of the fact and material produced in the case and considering the said fact, the trial Court has illegally granted bail. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the order dated 02.03.2020. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned HCGP and perused the records. This Court felt that notice to respondents is not necessary after hearing the learned HCGP. As such, notice to respondents/accused is dispensed with. 6. 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, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496 , wherein by relying on its earlier decisions in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 and in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh reported in (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, behavior, 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. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dolat Ram & others Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 has discussed in detail about the cancellation of bail already granted. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dolat Ram & others Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (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, reported in AIR 1999 SC 3026 and in the case of Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee Vs. State of West Bengal & another, reported in AIR 2004 SC 4207 . In Dolat Rams 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 non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted." 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid preposition of law, let me consider the contention taken up by the learned HCGP. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted." 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid preposition of law, let me consider the contention taken up by the learned HCGP. It is specific contention of the learned HCGP that there was a prohibitory order and the accused persons have caused damage to the public property and they have been involved in the case. But on perusal of the order of the trial Court, the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Even it is noticed that some of the accused persons have been earlier granted bail in the said crime number. The State preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same has been rejected. It is well settled preposition of law that in order to interfere with the bail order, there must be a cogent and overwhelming circumstances have to be placed on record. But on considering the contentions and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered opinion that no cogent and overwhelming circumstances have been brought on record so as to consider the contentions of the learned HCGP. In that light, the petitioner/State has not made out any case so as to allow the petition and to cancel the bail granted to respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.