ASHOK S/a SIDDAPPA SIDGANTI v. THE STATE BY FARHATABAD POLICE STATION
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Criminal Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 143, 147, 148, 149, 302
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Hence, I pass the following order St 4 ORDER Criminal Petition is allowed. Petitioner is granted bail with the following conditions: (i) He shall execute a personal bond for a sum of 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one solvent surety for the likesum…
Judgment
(BY SMT. UMADEVI S. BABSHETIY, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY FARHATABAD POLICE STATION. REPRESENTED BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADVOCATE GENERAL’S OFFICE. HIGH Court BUILDING CIRCUIT BENCH GULBARGA. (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR. HCGP) RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT THE BAIL RELEASING THE PETITIONER ON BIAL IN CRIME NO.13/2011 OF FARAHATAB POLICE STATION IN C.C. NO.1449/2011 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. JMFC GULBARGA, REGISTERED BY SINDAGI POLICE STATION, WHICH IS 2 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES p/U/S 143, 147, 148, 302 R/W 149 OF IPC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.6 in Crime No.13/2011 of the respondent Police the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC has preferred this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to grant him bail.
Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits there are 14 accused in the case. Accused No.3, 11 and 12 have released on bail, No overt act is alleged against the petitioner. He is in judicial custody since .frei 24.01.2011. chargesheet has been filed and there is no apprehension for prosecution that if the petitioner is released on bail he may tamper with prosecution witnesses or leave the jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition by granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 3
Whereas, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State does not dispute the fact of grant of bail to accused Nos. 3, 11 and 12 and filing of charge sheet. He submits that if the petitioner is released on ban he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and therefore, petitioner should not be granted bail and he prays for rejection of the bail petition. Alternatively he submits In the event of releasing him on bail stringent condition may be Imposed on the petitioner while granting him bail.
It is not in dispute that there are 14 accused In the case. Accused Nos. 3, 11 and 12 have been granted bail. Charge sheet has already been filed. No overt act Is alleged against the petitioner except stating he was present at the scene of occurrence of offence. If that Is so, I do not see any reason to deny bail to the petitioner.
Operative part
Hence, I pass the following order St 4 ORDER Criminal Petition is allowed. Petitioner is granted bail with the following conditions:
(i) He shall execute a personal bond for a sum of 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of concerned Court.
(ii) He shall appear before the respondent-Police as when his presence is required for investigation.
(iii) He shall not tamper. terrorize or induce the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
(iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without its express permission.
(v) He shall appear before the concerned Court on all the dates of hearing without fail.
(vi) If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, prosecution is at liberty to make an application before ‘! t••4 :1 4 • 5 the concerned Court for cancellation of the ball and on such an application Is made by the prosecution, If the concerned Court satisfies that he has violated any of the above conditions, It Is at liberty to cancel anticipatory ball granted to the petitioner by this Court. Sd! JUDGE VB’
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Criminal Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 143, 147, 148, 149, 302.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.