Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1952 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of Bail - petitioner has argued that a drunken brawl in a bar and restaurant has unnecessarily been given a hype by the media, both print and electronic, just because the petitioner happens to be a son of sitting MLA - offences punishable under sections 506, 506B, 326, 141, 143, 144, 146, 147, 341 read with section 149 of IPC - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is the son of a sitting MLA. The station house officer showed no interest in registering the complaint lodged before him at 11.45 p.m. There is also an endorsement made by the station house officer, showing that FIR was registered at 3.30 a.m. on 18.2.2018 in Crime No. 22/2018. There is no explanation as to why the station house officer delayed to register the complaint although it was made at 11.45 p.m. on 17.2.2018. In the meantime one Arun Babu made a complaint against Vidwat and it was registered at 5.30 a.m. on 18.2.2018 in Crime No. 23/2018. Though this complaint was registered at 5.30 a.m., this Arun Babu was taken to Bowring Hospital for treatment and there this Arun Babu would disclose history of assault on him at 12.00 a.m. on 18.2.2018, but by that time Vidwat had already been admitted to Mallya Hospital, Therefore, the incident alleged by Arun Babu cannot be per se believed and as rightly argued by the Special Public Prosecutor, it could be a stage managed complaint at the instance of the petitioner - the very registration of a case at the instance of Arun Babu appears to be due to intervention of a police officer. Inference can be drawn to this effect and therefore unhesitatingly it can be said that from the first hour itself, the petitioner tried to manage the police and definitely it was an act of interference. It is true that the seizure panchanamas do not disclose seizure of knuckle rings. But in the complaint made by Praveen Venkatachalaiah, there is a reference to employing the rings for hitting. If the I.O. did not seize rings, it cannot be a ground to suspect the prosecution case at this stage. It is well established principle, even the learned counsel for the petitioner argued, that for constituting an offence punishable under section 307 of IPC, a weapon need not always be used - Even if the intention was not there, if the prosecution is able to prove, that the accused had such kind of knowledge of the consequences of their act, the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC would get attracted. The stage is too early to examine the prosecution case in detail. For the purpose of granting bail, the materials placed by the prosecution before the court must be considered. Therefore, non seizure of knuckle rings is of no consequence. There are prima facie materials to connect the petitioner with non-bailable offences such as section 326 or section 307 of IPC - The CC TV footages show the horrendous atmosphere created when the incident took place and there is no guarantee that such people will remain quiet without tampering with evidence once they come out of jail. The Bail is rejected - Petition is dismissed.
|