Mobile View
Advanced Search Search Tips
View Complete document
Sri H D Kumaraswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2012
Showing the contexts in which interim anticipatory bail appears in the document
Change context size
Current

Sections 3 & 4 of KL(RT) Act r/w. 34 of IPC before the Special Court against this petitioner and three others. 7) The petition is opposed by the Respondent- Lokayuktha Police inter alia contending that at this stage there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the aforesaid offences and having regard to the nature and gravity of offences alleged, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. 10 Therefore, the respondent sought for dismissal of the petition. 8) After hearing both sides, this Court on 20.04.2012 granted interim anticipatory bail directing the respondent-Lokayuktha Police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to conditions contained therein. 9) At the hearing of petitioner, de-facto complainant represented through his counsel, sought to implead himself as party-respondent to this petition and sought permission to address argument. Without going into the question as to whether or not, the de-facto complainant has a right in law to participate in the proceedings of this nature and in the interest of justice, the counsel representing the de-facto complainant was permitted

note that after filing of the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer before the Special Judge, the learned Special Judge on 21.4.2012 took cognizance of the offences alleged and ordered issue on of summons to the petitioner and other accused persons. It is reported before this Court that though the petitioner arraigned as Accused No.1 did not appear before the learned Special Judge on the first date of hearing and sought exemption, later, he appeared before the learned Special Judge on 31.05.2012 and executed self-bond and furnished one 12 surety as per the terms of the interim anticipatory bail order dated 20.01.2012 granted by this Court. 12) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as under:- Perusal of the materials available on record, at this stage, does not prima facie establish that the petitioner is guilty of any of the offences alleged; that the perusal of the office note before the order of de- notification passed by this petitioner, would clearly indicate that the request for de-notification was pending for couple of months and the petitioner as Chief Minister, before exercising his discretionary power under Section 48 of the LA Act, directed verification of the records and putting

Court taking cognizance of the offences alleged, has not taken away the jurisdiction of this Court for exercising power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.; The petitioner has reasonable apprehension of his arrest in connection with the case now registered, pursuant to the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer and therefore, his personal liberty is required to be protected. It is his further submission that the fact of the petitioner appearing before the learned Special Judge pursuant to the summons issued by him and his execution of the self-bond with one surety pursuant to the interim anticipatory bail granted by this Court, has not in any way rendered the prayer made in this petition infructuous, since the apprehension of his arrest still continues and in the event of refusal to grant anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood of the Special 15 Court directing the custody of the petitioner. It is his further submission that, since the investigation is already over and the charge sheet has been filed before the jurisdictional Court, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations

cognizance and issuing summons came to be passed on 21.04.2012, while this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail on the previous day, namely on 20.04.2012. Pursuant to the order of interim anticipatory bail granted by this Court, the petitioner has executed self-bond and also furnished surety, which has been accepted by the learned Special Judge. Even in a case where the jurisdictional Court orders issue of summons in respect of bailable or non-bailable offences, the accused persons, upon appearing before the Court pursuant to such summons, will have to seek bail, if he is already not on bail. Even at that stage, the jurisdictional Court has to decide whether the accused persons are entitled to bail or not, and if prayer for bail is rejected, such person could be taken to custody. Therefore, mere appearance of the petitioner before the 25 learned Special Judge pursuant to the summons issued and execution of the self-bond as well as furnishing of surety as per the terms of interim anticipatory bail, in my opinion, has not rendered the prayer sought in this petition infructuous. 19) As per Section 438 of Cr.P.C., if any person has reason to believe