2018 (3) TMI 1952 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking 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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 326 IPC.
2. Inclusion of Section 307 IPC.
3. Nature and severity of injuries sustained by the victim.
4. Petitioner's cooperation with the investigation.
5. Media influence and public perception on the case.
6. Petitioner's influence and potential to tamper with evidence.
7. Comparison of the case with precedents and principles of bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 326 IPC:
The petitioner argued that the offence under Section 326 IPC should not be applicable as bottles and jugs, used in the assault, are not considered deadly weapons. He contended that the offence should fall under Section 325 IPC, which is bailable. The court, however, noted that the medical report showed grievous injuries and emphasized that the nature of the instrument used (bottle) and the manner of its use could indeed cause serious harm. Hence, the argument to reduce the charge to Section 325 IPC was not accepted.

2. Inclusion of Section 307 IPC:
The petitioner contended that the inclusion of Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) was unwarranted and influenced by external pressure. The court, however, found prima facie evidence supporting the charge under Section 307 IPC, noting that the brutal assault could have had fatal consequences without timely medical intervention. The court highlighted the importance of both intention and knowledge in constituting the offence under Section 307 IPC.

3. Nature and Severity of Injuries Sustained by the Victim:
The petitioner argued that the discharge summary from the hospital indicated that the injuries were not life-threatening. The court examined the discharge summary and other medical records, noting the presence of grievous injuries such as hairline fractures to nasal bones and ribs. The court also questioned the credibility of the discharge summary, suggesting possible tampering or undue influence by the petitioner.

4. Petitioner's Cooperation with the Investigation:
The petitioner claimed to have surrendered voluntarily and cooperated with the investigation. The court, however, pointed out instances of interference and manipulation, such as the delayed registration of the FIR and the filing of a counter-complaint against the victim. These actions indicated an attempt to manage and influence the investigation from the outset.

5. Media Influence and Public Perception on the Case:
The court acknowledged the significant media attention the case had attracted but emphasized that the decision on bail must be based on legal principles and the materials presented by the prosecution, not media perceptions. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra, stressing the need for judicial independence from public or media pressure.

6. Petitioner's Influence and Potential to Tamper with Evidence:
The court expressed concerns about the petitioner's influence, given his status as the son of a sitting MLA. It noted the potential for intimidation of witnesses and tampering with evidence, citing the petitioner's actions and the power dynamics observed in the case. The court referred to the horrifying nature of the incident, as evidenced by CCTV footage, and the fear it instilled in bystanders.

7. Comparison of the Case with Precedents and Principles of Bail:
The court reviewed several precedents cited by both parties. It distinguished the current case from those where bail was granted or charges were reduced after evidence was recorded. The court emphasized that the investigation was still ongoing and that the principles governing bail, such as the character and behavior of the accused and the potential for tampering with evidence, weighed against granting bail.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that there were prima facie materials connecting the petitioner to non-bailable offences under Sections 326 and 307 IPC. Given the petitioner's influence and the potential for tampering with evidence, the court denied the bail application, emphasizing the need to ensure a fair and impartial investigation. The petition was dismissed, and bail was rejected.