Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 996 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTSeeking enlargement on anticipatory bail - extraordinary power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. - It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner-accused No. 1 used the complainant to extract money from him and others by falsely implicating them in the conversation - HELD THAT:- There cannot be presumption of guilt so as to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before an independent forum or Court. The power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power which was incorporated before other provisions for granting of bail under Section 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. and judicial discretion is a matter regard and required to be exercised with due care and caution. Grant or refusal of bail is entirely discretionary and discretion should depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Certain parameters have to be kept in mind while considering or dealing with the application for anticipatory bail. In catena of decisions, even in Constitutional Bench law relating to grant of anticipatory bail has been discussed and emphasized that the provisions of anticipatory bail enshrined in Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is conceptualized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which relates to personal liberty and it shall be given a liberal interpretation. It is the duty of the Court to exercise its jurisdiction in proper way to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. If the Courts do not interfere, we are troubling the path on destruction - It is well settled proposition of law that while considering the bail application, the Court cannot hold a mini trial. If at all because of the intervention of the petitioner-accused No. 1, the tendering authority has disqualified the complainant from the tender process, then under such circumstances, some civil remedy is also available for the complainant to proceed in accordance with law, if he is advised to do so. Complainant being a responsible person and Director of a big construction company cannot be expected to speak in a tutored manner. It is true that autobiography and antecedents of the accused must be seen while considering the bail application, but at the same time autobiography and antecedents of the complainant must also be seen. Court has to put the facts of the case of the complainant and accused into a scale and weigh it to ascertain the truth. Complainant who is before the Court has also not come up with clean hands and it appears that all is not well. Thus, in order to ascertain the truth, a fair and unbiased investigation is necessary. Petitioner-accused No. 1, namely Rakesh Shetty, shall execute a personal bond for ₹ 2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer - petition allowed.
|