Veerahadraiah S/O Ramaiah Vs. the State of Karnataka by Nelamangala Police Represented by State Public Prosecutor - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- industrial disputes act, 1947 [c.a. no. 14/1947]. section 18: settlement interim order passed by industrial tribunal in reference extending financial benefits to workers in terms of settlement financial benefits include ex gratia payment workers of union though not signed settlement have attended duty at part with members who have entered into settlement held, they are entitled to ex-gratia payment. interim order is always subject to final result of dispute. interference of the high court is unwarranted unless injustice is shown. orderjawad rahim, j.1. petitioner is ranked as accused no. 5 in cr. no. 1117/08 on the file of nelamangala police station which is under investigation for en offence punishable under section 397 of ipc.2. the factual matrix of the case reveals that on a report submitted by abdul rehaman, who is police constable in peenya police station, the case in question was registered against unknown persons on the allegation that on 1.12.2008, while he was waiting for bus at jalahalli cross, be noticed tata sumo vehicle soliciting passengers. he boarded the vehicle to alight at narasandra, but enroute to that place on the national highway, a person seated in the rear side of the sumo holding threat to his life robbed all his belongings. he specifically alleged that there were seven occupants in the vehicle. out of two passengers, one of the occupants placed a knife at his neck while the other threatened him. they robbed him and he was thrown out of the vehicle, so also other passenger of the vehicle.3. during investigation nothing transpired, but later on 3.1.2009, the sub-inspector of police, who was watching the vehicles on n.h. 207 stopped one tata sumo vehicle and arrested accused nos. 1 and 2. on interrogation, it is alleged that they revealed committing of offence of dacoity and on their evidence they recovered mobile phone and certain articles as per the description given by complainant in such circumstances, they were indicted as accused and during further investigation accused no.2 and 4 were also arrested.4. from the gamut of such materials, it is seen that petitioner's name came up as one of the offenders (accused no. 5). but the prosecution does not dispute the contention of the petitioner that nothing has been recovered from his possession and his implication is only on the statement of co-accused. such material in my opinion, does not make out any prima facie case against accused for an offence punishable under section 397 of ipc at least on today. possibly further investigation made reveals material incriminating against him. it is also seen that this court in cr. no. b51/09 has admitted accused no. 2 -prasanna kumar to bail against whom not only the prosecution material shows he was in possession of the stolen articles, but was also in possession of the vehicle used in the crime. when such a person has been admitted to bail, i find the request made by the petitioner to grant him anticipatory bail would certainly be entertained.5. with these observations the petition stands allowed with following conditions:1) petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer incharge of the investigation, within two weeks from the tote of receipt of the copy of the order end on his appearance the investigating officer shall release him on executing bond for a sum of rs. 50,000/- with one surety to the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer;2) petitioner shall report to the jurisdictional police station on every sunday between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. till the investigation is complete;3) he shall engage in no act adverse to the prosecution;4) he shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required to submit himself for interrogation and assist in recovery, if any;5) within three weeks of his arrest arid release in the manner aforesaid, he shall seek grant of regular bail before the trial court, failing which the benefit of this order shall be revoked.

Judgment:
ORDER

Jawad Rahim, J.

1. Petitioner is ranked as accused No. 5 in Cr. No. 1117/08 on the file of Nelamangala Police Station which is under investigation for en offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC.

2. The factual matrix of the case reveals that on a report submitted by Abdul Rehaman, who is police constable in Peenya Police Station, the case in question was registered against unknown persons on the allegation that on 1.12.2008, while he was waiting for bus at Jalahalli Cross, be noticed Tata Sumo Vehicle soliciting passengers. He boarded the vehicle to alight at Narasandra, but enroute to that place on the National Highway, a person seated in the rear side of the Sumo holding threat to his life robbed all his belongings. He specifically alleged that there were seven occupants in the vehicle. Out of two passengers, one of the occupants placed a knife at his neck while the other threatened him. They robbed him and he was thrown out of the vehicle, so also other passenger of the vehicle.

3. During investigation nothing transpired, but later on 3.1.2009, the sub-inspector of Police, who was watching the vehicles on N.H. 207 stopped one Tata Sumo Vehicle and arrested accused Nos. 1 and 2. On Interrogation, it is alleged that they revealed committing of offence of dacoity and on their evidence they recovered mobile phone and certain articles as per the description given by complainant in such circumstances, they were indicted as accused and during further investigation accused no.2 and 4 were also arrested.

4. From the gamut of such materials, it is seen that petitioner's name came up as one of the offenders (accused No. 5). But the prosecution does not dispute the contention of the petitioner that nothing has been recovered from his possession and his implication is only on the statement of co-accused. Such material in my opinion, does not make out any prima facie case against accused for an offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC at least on today. Possibly further investigation made reveals material incriminating against him. It is also seen that this court in Cr. No. B51/09 has admitted accused No. 2 -Prasanna Kumar to bail against whom not only the prosecution material shows he was in possession of the stolen articles, but was also in possession of the vehicle used in the crime. When such a person has been admitted to bail, I find the request made by the petitioner to grant him anticipatory bail would certainly be entertained.

5. With these observations the petition stands allowed with following conditions:

1) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer incharge of the investigation, within two weeks from the tote of receipt of the copy of the order end on his appearance the Investigating Officer shall release him on executing bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety to the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

2) Petitioner shall report to the jurisdictional police station on every Sunday between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. till the investigation is complete;

3) He shall engage In no act adverse to the prosecution;

4) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required to submit himself for interrogation and assist in recovery, if any;

5) Within three weeks of his arrest arid release in the manner aforesaid, he shall seek grant of regular bail before the trial court, failing which the benefit of this order shall be revoked.