Karnataka High Court
Mr Abin P Sibi vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 November, 2024
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45392
CRL.P No. 10877 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10877 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MR. ABIN P SIBI
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
S/O MR. SIBI B.E.
R/AT PICHAKKAPALLI HOUSE
VAZIKADAVU VILLAGE PATHERA POST
PODAKKALA NAGAR, NILAMBOORU TALUK
MALAPUURA KERALA STATE - 679 333.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SACHIN B.S, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KADADBA POLICE STATION
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 221
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally
signed by HIGH COURT BUILDING
NANDINI MS BANGALORE - 560 001.
Location: ...RESPONDENT
High Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI CHANNAPPA EERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS)
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT
POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.,
IN CONNECTION WITH SC.NO.5012/2024 IN CR.NO.31/2024
REGISTERED BY KADABA POLICE, ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE, SITTING AT
PUTTUR, D.K., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 447,326(A),307 AND 201
OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45392
CRL.P No. 10877 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused in S.C.No.5012/2024 pending before the Court of
V Addl. District & Sessions, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru,
sitting at Puttur, arising out of Crime No.31/2024 registered by
Kadaba Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District, for the
offences punishable under Sections 447, 326A, 307, 201 IPC, is
before this Court under Section 439 Cr.PC.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.31/2024 was registered by Kadaba Police
Station, Dakshina Kannada District, initially for the offences
punishable under Sections 447, 326A, 307 IPC against the
petitioner herein on the basis of the first information dated
04.03.2024 received from Salin.K.P., S/o K.C.Poulose -
Lecturer in Government PU College, Kadaba. During the course
of investigation of the case, petitioner was arrested on
04.03.2024 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody.
Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet has
been filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. Bail
application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court in
NC: 2024:KHC:45392
S.C.No.5012/2024 was rejected on 03.09.2024. Therefore, he
is before this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition, submits that the petitioner is an
youngster having no criminal antecedents. He is in custody for
the last more than seven months. Investigation in the case is
completed. Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present
case. The grounds of arrest were not made known to the
petitioner in the language known to him. The same amounts to
violation of the constitutional rights guaranteed to him in view
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
PRABIR PURKAYASTHA VS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) - (2024)8
SCC 254, and the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in
W.P.(Stamp) No.17029/2024 (Sachin Mahipati Nimbalkar Vs
The State of Maharashtra) disposed of on 23.10.2024.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP has seriously opposed the
petition. He submits that the petitioner has committed a
heinous offence and as a result, three minor girls have suffered
grievous injuries. He submits that one amongst the three, has
suffered permanent disability as a result of the heinous crime
NC: 2024:KHC:45392
committed by the petitioner. The injury suffered by the minor
girls has caused scar on their body as well as on their mind.
Petitioner hails from Kerala State, and in the event, he is
enlarged on bail, he is likely to flee away from justice.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. FIR in the present case has been registered against the
petitioner on the basis of the first information received from the
Lecturer of the Pre-University College in which the three victim
girls were studying. Perusal of the averments found in the first
information would reveal that the incident in question had
taken place inside the campus of the Pre-University College and
the petitioner had entered the campus wearing the college
uniform, carrying a bottle of acid and he had thrown the acid
which he had carried on the victim girls.
7. The material on record would go to show that the
petitioner was chased and apprehended by the other students
of the College immediately after he committed the crime. In the
charge sheet, it is alleged that since CW-2 who is one of the
victims in the present case had refused the proposal of the
petitioner and she was ignoring him, he had decided to teach
NC: 2024:KHC:45392
her a lesson and after purchasing 500 ML of sulphuric acid in
his native place, he had traveled to Kadaba in Dakshina
Kannada District and on 04.03.2024, when CW-2 was along
with CW-3 & CW-4 who are her friends and also the victims in
the present case, the petitioner splashed the sulphuric acid
towards CW-2 from the bottle which he had carried, and as a
result of the same, CW-2 and her friends CW-3 & CW-4 who
were along with her, suffered grievous injuries on their face
and other parts of the body.
8. The wound certificate of all the three victims in the
present case would go to show that they have suffered grievous
injuries and the Trial Court has observed that the disability
certificate of CW-2 would go to show that she has suffered
permanent disability. It appears that the victim girls have also
suffered permanent scars on their face and body as a result of
the acid burn.
9. Petitioner has committed a heinous offence and as a
result, three minor girls who are victims in the present case,
are made to suffer life long.
NC: 2024:KHC:45392
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously
submitted that the grounds of arrest that was served on the
petitioner was in Kannada language which is not known to the
petitioner, and therefore, his rights guaranteed under Articles
21 & 22 of the Constitution of India is infringed.
11. In Prabir Purkayastha's case supra and also in Sachin
Mahipati Nimbalkar's case supra, the grounds of arrest was not
served on the accused, and therefore, it has been held in the
said cases that the same violated the rights guaranteed to the
petitioner, and accordingly, petitioners/accused in the said
cases were granted bail. In the case on hand, the grounds of
arrest was served on the petitioner immediately after his
arrest. The grievance of the petitioner is that the same was in
Kannada language which the petitioner is not able to read and
write.
12. In Prabir Purkayastha's case on which reliance has been
placed in Sachin Mahipati Nimbalkar's case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that the grounds of arrest in
writing must be informed to the accused conveying him the
basic facts on which he has been arrested so as to defend
NC: 2024:KHC:45392
himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Therefore,
the purpose of informing the arrested accused about the
grounds of arrest is to provide him an opportunity of defending
himself against custodial remand and to seek bail.
13. In the present case, the grounds of arrest has been
undisputedly served on the petitioner immediately after his
arrest. In Prabir Purkayastha's case supra, it was noted by the
Supreme Court that the grounds of arrest was not served on
the accused or on his counsel before passing the order of
remand which vitiated the arrest. However, in the case on
hand, since the grounds of arrest was already served on the
petitioner, the same was very much available for his advocate
to defend him, and therefore, the judgments in Prabir
Purkayastha's case supra and Sachin Mahipati Nimbalkar's case
supra, on which reliance has been placed by the Counsel for the
petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
14. In addition to the same, in the present case, the
petitioner has been apprehended within the campus of the
institution in which he had committed the crime, by the
NC: 2024:KHC:45392
students of the institution immediately after the petitioner
committed the crime and tried to escape. Therefore, the
arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner
that supply of grounds of arrest to the petitioner in a language
not known to him, has violated his guaranteed under Articles
21 & 22 of the Constitution of India cannot be appreciated and
the same is liable to be and is accordingly rejected.
15. Considering the gravity of the offence committed by the
petitioner inside the premises of an educational institution in
the presence of students and teachers, I am of the opinion that
the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail at
this stage cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the petition is
dismissed.
SD/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
