Chances of getting anticipatory bail under section 402&399
dheeraj kumar
(Querist) 17 July 2015
This query is : Resolved
Dear Expert,
Please guide me about chances of getting anticipatory bail under section 402 & 399. We have filed bail application on 18th of July and since then 2 arguments have happened but judge has not granted bail and another date for argument has been given.
Out of 5 people arrested by police on 15.June.15 against same FIR, one person has been granted bail today 17.07.2015. Now what are the chances for other four persons?
Is there any law which says that if out 5 people, anyone get bail then rest of the people will also be granted bail?
Seeking your expert comments.
Regards
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 18 July 2015
GO THROUGH THIS JUDGEMENT:
Karnataka High Court
Shreyas @ Magadi vs The State By on 20 February, 2014
Author: Budihal R.B.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE.BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.415 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SHREYAS @ MAGADI
S/O PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.36, I MAIN,
14TH CROSS, KAMAKSHIPALYA,
BANGALORE 560 007
...PETITIONER
(BY K.KUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE BY
KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION
BANGALORE - 560 007.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NOL748/13
OF KAMAKSHIPALYA P.S., BANGALORE CITY, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE, FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 399, 402 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioner / accused No.4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent - police to release the petitioner in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Section 399, 402 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.748/2013.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the averments of the complainant are that on 29.10.2013 at about 10.10 p.m. on credible information received by the respondent - police that associates of Muni @ Muniraja and Chikkanna along with three others making preparation to commit dacoity and murder of one Kariah @ Raghava and wherein possession of Hyundai Car bearing registration No.KA-- 02-MG-8622 with deadly weapons at Malagala Road, Sumanahalli, Bangalore. Then the police along with the staff went to the said place and they have apprehended accused Nos.1 to 3 and also seized weapon and vehicle from accused Nos.1 to 3 on the spot. It is also alleged that the petitioner and another absconded from the spot. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered against the present petitioner and other accused persons.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / accused No.4 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that petitioner is innocent person and he is not at all involved in the commission of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He made the submission that accused Nos.1 to 3, who are said to be the main accused persons in this case, have been already granted with bail and on the ground of parity present petitioner is also entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail. He made the submission that present petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. Except this case, there are no other case booked against him and he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, learned counsel made the submission that the petitioner may be granted with anticipatory bail.
5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent - State during the course of his arguments submitted that from the date of incident the present petitioner absconded and he was not available for Investigating Officer for interrogation. The offence alleged are serious in nature, hence, at this stage petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail. He also made the submission that investigation is not completed, hence petition may be rejected.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, the order passed by the Lower Court on the bail application and also other materials placed on record. Looking to the averments made in the complaint same set of allegations are made against all other accused persons who are said to be involved in the alleged offence. Now the case of the prosecution is that police have already recovered two iron rods and car which is said to have been used by the accused persons on the date of the incident, so nothing further is to be recovered from the accused persons. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused Nos.1 to 3 have been already enlarged on bail, therefore, when allegations are same against all the accused persons, on the ground of parity present petitioner is also entitled to be granted with bail. Regarding the apprehension of the prosecution that he may abscond and he may tamper with prosecution witnesses reasonable conditions can be imposed to secure the presence of the present petitioner before the Investigating Officer as well as before the concerned Court, which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution. The offence alleged under Section 399 and 402 are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, therefore, considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Respondent - police are directed to release the petitioner / accused No.4 in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences under Section 399 and 402 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station in Crime No.748/2013, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, whenever called for. iv. Petitioner to give attendance before the respondent - police station on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. till the completion of investigation.
Sd/-
JUDGE DR
dheeraj kumar
(Querist) 18 July 2015
Thank you Mr. Devalla.
by reading the judgment, i believe we should get bail in the next hearing.
Regards
Dheeraj
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 18 July 2015
granting bail is discretion of court's.. merits and grounds may differ case to case.
but co accused enlarged on bail mean court will consider that..
-M/s.Y-not legal services-
dheeraj kumar
(Querist) 19 July 2015
Thanks to all respected member for their expert comments...
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 19 July 2015
Once a co-accused has been enlarged on bail, the other accused stand a fair chance to get bail until and unless the seriousness of the offences on the co accused are severer than to that of the one released on bail.
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 20 July 2015
If the main accused gets bail then there is fair chance of bail for other co-accused.
