Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 958 (KAR)

Amarnath H. l. v. State of Karnataka

2022-07-27

K.NATARAJAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting bail in Crime No.202/2022 registered by Bidadi Police, Ramanagar District for the offences punishable under Sections 341,353, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 3. The case of the complainant is that the complainant one Sri. Vinod, official car driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01-G-6109 which belonged to the Judge, High Court of Karnataka alleging that on 25.05.2022 at about 3.30 p.m., he was escorting the family members of the Hon'ble Judge towards Hejjala, Judicial Layout, where the construction of new residential house of the Hon'ble Judge was going on and at about 4.30 p.m. near to that place a person came in car bearing registration No.KA-05-MQ- 9669 intercepted the complainant and has restrained the complainant that he has been misusing the official vehicle of the High Court etc., and that he introduced himself as a journalist attached to news 10 Kannada and also the chief editor of Kannada Huli news paper and he made them to wait for an hour and also abused them and also threatened them that he would snap the photographs of the house and the vehicle and would post it in the media etc., It is further alleged that the petitioner has restrained the complainant from discharging his official duty as public servant. Further, the complainant stated that since the alleged incident was taken place at about 4.30p.m. on 25.05.2022, since he had to take the family members of the Hon'ble Judge to their residence and later he came back on next date and gave complaint to the jurisdictional police on 26.05.2022 at about 4.50p.m. After registering the case, the police have arrested the petitioner on 28.05.2022 after the interrogation he has been produced before the trial court and remanded to judicial custody. Since then the petitioner has been in judicial custody the petitioner has approached the Trial Court and Sessions Court for grant of bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court. 4. Since then the petitioner has been in judicial custody the petitioner has approached the Trial Court and Sessions Court for grant of bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court. 4. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP and on perusal of the records, it shows that it is an unfortunate incident that a media person obstructs the work of official driver of car belonging to Judge of High Court of Karnataka and pick up a quarrel with the driver as well as the family members of the Judge who were traveling in the car. Being a media person committed an offence by obstructing the work of official driver of Judge of High Court of Karnataka. The act of accused is condemnable and he should not have committed such an offence against driver of the High Court car which is nothing but confronting with High Court and tarnishing image of the High Court. Learned senior counsel also submits that the petitioner is ready to tender apology. However, the alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment for two years. He was in judicial custody since two months and the police have filed charge sheet for the offence committed by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru and is innocent over the alleged incident and the offences alleged. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to abide any of the conditions to be imposed by this Court. Considering the said aspect, the alleged offence are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and punishable and triable by magistrate knowing that the car belongs to the Judge of High Court of Karnataka. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and by imposing certain conditions, if the petitioner/accused is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition is allowed. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and by imposing certain conditions, if the petitioner/accused is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner/accused on bail in Crime No.202/2022, subject to the following conditions:- The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in Crime No.202/2022 of Bidadi Police Station, Ramnagar District for the offences punishable under Sections 341,353, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:- (i) Petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate Court/trial Court/Committal Court; (ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly; (iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly; (iv) Petitioner shall not misuse the media and to publish about the alleged incident in any media or media running under him. If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order.