Ashok Shastry vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 6116 Kant

                                               -1-
                                                         NC: 2023:KHC:31148
                                                      CRL.P No. 519 of 2023



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                             BEFORE

                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                            CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 519 OF 2023

                BETWEEN:

                ASHOK SHASTRY
                S/O RAMPRASAD SHASTRY
                AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
                R/AT NO.512 8TH CROSS
                3RD PHASE J.P. NAGAR
                BENGALURU - 560 078.
                                                               ...PETITIONER
                (BY SRI AIYAPPA K.G, ADV.)

Digitally
                AND:
signed by
NANDINI MS
Location:       1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
High Court of        BY J P NAGAR POLICE
Karnataka
                     STATION BENGALURU
                     REPRESENTED BY THE
                     STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     HIGH COURT BUILDING
                     BENGALURU - 560 001.

                2.   RAVIKIRAN ALGUR
                     S/O RAGHAVENDRA ALGUR
                     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
                     R/AT PLOT NO.35
                     SRI LAXMI BHAIRAV NAGAR
                     ATHANI ROAD
                     BIJAPUR - 586 102.
                                                             ...RESPONDENTS
                (BY SMT. SOWMYA R, HCGP FOR R-1;
                SRI B.S. VENKATANARAYANA, ADV., FOR
                SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADV.)
                                -2-
                                              NC: 2023:KHC:31148
                                           CRL.P No. 519 of 2023



      THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE   ORDER     DATED   27.12.2022    IN   CRL.MISC.NO.12509/2022
PASSED   BY   THE   LEARNED   LV     ADDITIONAL   CITY   CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-56), THERE BY CANCELLING
THE IMPUGNED BAIL ORDER FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A.


      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                              ORDER

1. The defacto complainant is before this Court under

Section 439(2) Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the order dated

27.12.2022 passed by the Court of LV Addl. City Civil &

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.12509/2022, wherein

respondent no.2 has been granted regular bail under Section

439 Cr.PC in Crime No.298/2022 registered by J.P.Nagar Police

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 436, 448,

504, 511 IPC.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Petitioner herein had lodged a complaint on 15.12.2022

before the J.P.Nagar Police, Bengaluru, alleging that respondent

no.2 who is his former employee who was dismissed on

07.02.2019, has been harassing him and his family members

NC: 2023:KHC:31148 CRL.P No. 519 of 2023

on social media. It is also alleged that in the early morning of

13.12.2022, respondent no.2 threw seven bags of petrol inside

his garage and tried to lit fire and damage the property of the

petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR in Crime

No.298/2022 was registered by J.P.Nagar Police against

respondent no.2 for the aforesaid offences.

4. During the course of investigation, respondent no.2 was

arrested on 17.12.2022. His regular bail application filed before

the LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in

Crl.Misc.No.12509/2022 was allowed on 27.12.2022.

Challenging the said order, the defacto complainant is before

this Court.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the facts

of the case before enlarging respondent no.2 on bail. He

submits that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to take

judicial notice of the fact that the offence under Section 436

IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life. He submits that

the seriousness of the allegations in the complaint has not been

properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge which has

NC: 2023:KHC:31148 CRL.P No. 519 of 2023

resulted in erroneously granting the relief of regular bail to

respondent no.2. The discretionary relief has been arbitrarily

exercised in favour of respondent no.2. In support of his

arguments, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:

(i) Bharatbhai Bhimabhai Bharwad Vs. State of Gujarat & Others - (2020)18 SCC 693;

(ii) Lalitha Vs. State of Karnataka, Subramanya Police Station & Others - Crl.P.No.7143/2021 decided on 14.01.2022;

(iii) Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla Vs. Anitha Agarwal & Others - 2020 SCC OnLine SCC 1031;

(iv) Shanid.T. Vs. State represented by Public Prosecutor & another - 2011 SCC OnLine Ker 3795;

(v) Sudha Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another -

(2021)4 SCC 781;

(vi) State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav & another - (2016)2 SCC 402;

(vii) Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh & another Vs. State of Gujarat & Others - (2004)4 SCC 158.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits

that charge sheet in the case is filed and the offence under

Section 436 IPC has been dropped in the charge sheet. The

NC: 2023:KHC:31148 CRL.P No. 519 of 2023

maximum punishment for the other offences is only

imprisonment for seven years. Therefore, it cannot be said that

the learned Sessions Judge has erred in granting bail in favour

of respondent no.2. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the

petition.

7. The alleged incident had taken place on 13.12.2022. The

complaint was lodged by the petitioner herein on 15.12.2022.

There is no proper explanation for the inordinate delay caused

in filing the complaint. Respondent no.2 is a former employee

of the petitioner. It is stated in the complaint that due to the

behavioral issues of respondent no.2, he was dismissed from

service by the petitioner. Petitioner appears to have lodged

complaints against respondent no.2 even earlier to the present

complaint. Though in the present case FIR was registered for

the offence under Section 436 IPC, the police after investigation

have filed charge sheet against respondent no.2 only for the

offences under Sections 435, 448, 504, 511 IPC. No charge

sheet has been filed against respondent no.2 for the offence

under Section 436 IPC. The maximum punishment for the

offences alleged against the petitioner is imprisonment which

may extend to seven years.

NC: 2023:KHC:31148 CRL.P No. 519 of 2023

8. During the course of investigation, respondent no.2 was

arrested in the case and considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge has

enlarged him on regular bail. From the perusal of the facts and

circumstances of the case and also having regard to the

reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while granting

the relief of regular bail to respondent no.2, it cannot be said

that the order impugned is either perverse or illegal. Unless

exceptional and supervening circumstances is made out, an

order of granting bail to an accused cannot be cancelled. In the

present case, no such exceptional or supervening circumstance

has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner

so as to cancel the regular bail granted to respondent no.2 for

the offences punishable under Sections 435, 448, 504, 511 IPC.

9. It is trite that judgments can be relied upon as

precedents only if they are applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the case. None of the judgments on which

reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the

petitioner can be made applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the present case. Under the circumstances, I

NC: 2023:KHC:31148 CRL.P No. 519 of 2023

do not find any good reason to set aside the impugned order.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

KK