2020 (11) TMI 1016 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - allegation against the petitioner is that he has conspired with the other accused and engaged them to commit murder - HELD THAT - The petitioner is an influential person and he will tamper the evidence and influence the witnesses. In view of the same the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to find out more facts. The learned State Public Prosecutor also referred to status report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. From the status report it is seen that A2 A11 and A13 surrendered and A3 to A10 A12 and A14 were arrested. In the status report it is not stated whether the accused persons A.2 to A.14 are still in custody or they were released on bail. The apprehension of the learned State Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor is that unless the petitioner is taken into custody and interrogated he will tamper the evidence and influence the witnesses. It is seen that the petitioner is not apprehended for one year from date of occurrence and all other accused were released on bail. Considering the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner the learned State Public Prosecutor and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions as the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate II Hosur Krishnagiri on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate II Hosur Krishnagiri failing which the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed - Bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking anticipatory bail for alleged offences under IPC, Prosecution's case based on circumstantial evidence, Prosecution's claim of petitioner's involvement in a planned murder, Arguments for and against custodial interrogation, Previous bail petitions dismissed, Decision on granting anticipatory bail.

Analysis:
1. Petitioner's Anticipatory Bail Request: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail concerning offences under IPC. The petitioner, not connected with the alleged offence, argued that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and false implication. He emphasized his good reputation, lack of evidence against him, and willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

2. Prosecution's Case: The prosecution alleged the petitioner as the prime accused in a planned murder. They claimed the petitioner arranged hooligans to kill the victim due to business rivalry. The prosecution highlighted confessions of other accused, witness statements, and the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the truth. They argued against granting anticipatory bail based on the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner's alleged influence.

3. Intervenor's Submission: The intervenor supported the prosecution's stance, emphasizing the petitioner's motive, strong evidence against him, and the risk of evidence tampering if not taken into custody. They contended that custodial interrogation was crucial to prevent accused fleeing and destroying evidence.

4. Rebuttal by Petitioner's Counsel: The petitioner's counsel refuted the prosecution's claims, stating the case lacked eyewitness evidence and highlighted procedural delays in the investigation. They argued for anticipatory bail based on circumstantial evidence and previous court judgments supporting their stance.

5. Court's Decision: After considering all arguments, the court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with specific conditions. The court noted the time elapsed since the incident, the release of other accused on bail, the petitioner's age and health condition, and his willingness to cooperate. The court imposed conditions such as a bail bond, regular reporting to the police, non-absconding, and non-tampering with evidence.

6. Final Order: The court allowed the Criminal Original Petition, ordering the petitioner's release on bail upon arrest or appearance within a specified period. The court set stringent conditions to ensure compliance and warned of consequences for any breach, including registration of a fresh FIR in case of absconding.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the legal judgment's key aspects, including arguments presented, the court's reasoning, and the final decision on granting anticipatory bail in the case.