2018 (6) TMI 1784 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Bail - position or power to bring pressure on the Investigating Officer or the witnesses or not - presumption of guilt - filing of the charge sheet would amount to change of circumstances or not - HELD THAT - There is nothing in the entire charge sheet to indicate that the petitioner was in a position or power to bring pressure on the Investigating Officer or the witnesses. The records reveal that the petitioner was a Graduate and was assisting his father in running his Industry. No-doubt, there is enough material to show that the father of the petitioner is a local M.L.A. But merely on that ground, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner was in a influential position and that he was making use of the power and position of his father to misdirect the investigation or to screen himself from the legal punishment. There is no presumption that the son of a M.L.A. is in a position to wield power and influence on all and sundry. Just as, a son cannot be made liable for the sins of his father, the status and position of a father cannot act as a disability against a son to seek bail. Therefore, it was not proper on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to deny bail to the petitioner on the purported ground that the petitioner was in a position to use power and influence, in case, he was released on bail. The records indicate that the charge under section 307 Indian Penal Code came to be inserted at a later stage after recording the statement of the injured witness. There is inordinate delay in recording the statement of CW-2. Though the medical records indicate that CW-2 was in a fit condition to give his statement on 26.02.2018, his statement came to be recorded only on 03.03.2018. The statement made by CW-2 imputing allegation that the petitioner forced him to fall to his feet and on account of his refusal to heed to the demand of the petitioner, he was slapped and assaulted by the accused does not find place in the complaint lodged by CW-1 at the earliest point of time. All these circumstances indicate that a deliberate attempt has been made to improve the case of the prosecution from stage to stage to bolster up the charges, solely with a view to deny bail to the petitioner. None of the parties had any intention or motive to harm or injure CW-2. Neither the petitioner nor any of the accused were armed with deadly weapons. There are no allegations against the petitioner that he used any weapon to cause injuries on CW-2. Accused No. 7 is already enlarged on bail by orders of this Court in the Petition. Therefore, having regard to all these facts and circumstances, the petitioner requires to be admitted to bail subject to conditions. The criminal petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the filing of the charge sheet constitutes a change of circumstances sufficient to entertain a successive bail application.
2. Whether the trial court erred in its interpretation and application of the Supreme Court's judgment in Virupakshagouda's case.
3. Whether the petitioner, by virtue of his familial connections, poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
4. Whether the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the incident justify the denial of bail under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Change of Circumstances with Filing of Charge Sheet:
The petitioner argued that the filing of the charge sheet constituted a change of circumstances warranting a fresh consideration for bail. The court acknowledged that the submission of the charge sheet provides the accused with more material to address the court and point out any lacunas in the investigation. The court cited the Bombay High Court's judgment in Laxman Irappa Hatti, which emphasized that the filing of the charge sheet should be considered a substantial change in circumstances, allowing the court to reevaluate the need for continued custody. The court agreed with this view, noting that the trial court should have considered the merits of the case afresh based on the new material available post-charge sheet filing.

2. Misinterpretation of Supreme Court Judgment in Virupakshagouda's Case:
The trial court rejected the petitioner’s bail application by misquoting the Supreme Court's judgment in Virupakshagouda's case, suggesting that the filing of the charge sheet does not amount to a change of circumstances. The High Court found this interpretation erroneous, clarifying that the Supreme Court's actual observation was that the filing of the charge sheet does not lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. The High Court pointed out that the trial court's reliance on a misquoted judgment led to a perverse and illegal order.

3. Risk of Tampering with Evidence or Influencing Witnesses:
The trial court denied bail on the grounds that the petitioner might use his power and position to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. The High Court found no basis for this conclusion in the charge sheet and noted that the petitioner was merely assisting his father in running an industry. The court emphasized that the presumption of guilt should not lead to the deprivation of liberty without substantial evidence of the accused's ability to influence the investigation or witnesses.

4. Nature of Injuries and Circumstances of the Incident:
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and other accused assaulted CW-2, causing grievous injuries. However, the court noted that the petitioner’s actions were limited to slapping and kicking CW-2, with no evidence of grievous hurt inflicted by him. The injuries sustained by CW-2 were attributed to other accused, and there was no indication of premeditation or intent to cause death. The court observed that the incident was triggered by a trivial issue and did not justify categorizing the petitioner’s actions under Section 307 IPC. The court also highlighted the delay in recording CW-2's statement, suggesting an attempt to bolster charges against the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the bail petition, emphasizing the need for judicial uniformity and consistency, especially in light of the co-accused being granted bail. The court imposed conditions on the petitioner, including furnishing a bond, appearing before the court as required, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving the trial court's jurisdiction without permission. The court's observations were confined to the bail petition and not intended to influence the trial judge.

Order:
The petitioner was granted bail on furnishing a bond of ?2,00,000 with two sureties, along with conditions to ensure his compliance with the trial process and prevent any tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.