Advanced Search Search Tips
View Complete document
Sri H D Kumaraswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2012
Showing the contexts in which interim anticipatory bail appears in the document
Change context size
Current

7) The petition is opposed by the Respondent- Lokayuktha Police inter alia contending that at this stage there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the aforesaid offences and having regard to the nature and gravity of offences alleged, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. 10 Therefore, the respondent sought for dismissal of the petition.

8) After hearing both sides, this Court on 20.04.2012 granted interim anticipatory bail directing the respondent-Lokayuktha Police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to conditions contained therein.

                  (underlining is by me)


     18)      In the case of     VENKATACHALAIAH AND

OTHERS VS. STATE OF            KARNATAKA BY KADUGODI

POLICE, BANGALORE, reported in ILR 2003 KAR 3985, this Court has held that, the apprehension of the applicant becomes certain that he would be arrested once a charge sheet is filed or warrant is issued by the Magistrate. Therefore, filing of a charge sheet and issuance of warrant are certainly the grounds which make the person not only to believe that he would be arrested, but also he can move the Courts under Section 438(1) Cr.P.C. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, it is clear that filing of the charge sheet and the jurisdictional Court taking cognizance thereon are no grounds to hold that the Court has no power to grant the relief of anticipatory bail. No doubt, the learned Special Judge after taking cognizance of the 24 offences alleged in the charge sheet, directed issue of summons to the petitioner and other accused persons and not warrant. It is necessary to note here that the order taking cognizance and issuing summons came to be passed on 21.04.2012, while this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail on the previous day, namely on 20.04.2012. Pursuant to the order of interim anticipatory bail granted by this Court, the petitioner has executed self-bond and also furnished surety, which has been accepted by the learned Special Judge.

21) In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused alleging commission of non-bailable offences. Of course, during investigation, which started on the basis of the reference made by the Special Judge, it appears there was no attempt on the part of the Investigating Officer to apprehend and arrest the petitioner. Investigation is now over and the charge sheet has been filed and the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance. The petitioner has appeared before the jurisdictional Court and as per the interim anticipatory bail granted by this 27 Court, has executed self bond and has furnished surety. But for the interim anticipatory bail order granted by this court, on his appearance, the petitioner ought to have moved for bail before the Special Judge and in the event of rejection of the prayer, there was every possibility of the Court ordering custody of the petitioner. Even now, if the relief in this petition is not granted and in the event of the Special Judge refusing to grant bail, the petitioner is likely to be arrested and remanded to custody. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case (supra), it has been ruled that, if an application for anticipatory bail is made to the High Court or the Court of Sessions, it must apply its own mind to the question and decide whether a case has been made out for granting such relief and it cannot leave the question for the decision of the Magistrate concerned under Section 437 of the Code, as and when an occasion arise. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that he is likely to be arrested is well-founded, as such, this Court 28 is required to consider as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail

29) In the light of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the interim anticipatory bail 38 granted to the petitioner deserves to be made absolute. It is necessary to note here that in Mhetre's case (supra) the Apex Court has held that the order of anticipatory bail if granted should ordinarily be in force till the conclusion of the trial unless it is recalled for justifiable reasons.

30) Hence, the petition is allowed. The interim anticipatory bail granted by this Court on 20.04.2012 is made absolute subject to the self-bond already executed and surety already produced before and accepted by the jurisdictional Court and also subject to other conditions imposed therein.