Rajanna S/O. Bangooraiah, Vs. Police Inspector and Station House Officer Represented by Special Public Prosecutor - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- code of civil procedure, 1908. section 100:[v. jagannathan, j] remand of case by second appellate court held, directions given by second appellate court cannot be ignored by lower appellate court on the grounds that said directions are without jurisdiction or nullity and non-est in eyes of law. -- section 100: second appeal concurrent findings of fact held, it is not liable to be interfered with even if first appellate court commits an error in recording a finding of fact. -- order 41, rule 23a & section 105(2): appealable order - decree passed by lower appellate court was reversed in appeal and further directions were given to dispose of matter in light of observations made in the order of remand held, appeal can be said to have been disposed of otherwise than on a preliminary point. provisions of rule 23a of order 41 is applicable. order passed pursuant to rule 23a becomes an appealable order. no appeal against remand order having been preferred, party aggrieved is precluded from disputing correctness in view of section 105(2). k.n. keshavanarayana, j.1. in this petition filed under section 438 cr.p.c., the 1st petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest by lokayukta police in connection with crime no. 6 of 2009. the petition in respect of petitioners 2 and 3 has been dismissed as not pressed.2. on the complaint said to have been lodged by one ravi kumar, the lokayuktha police, mysore, registered the aforesaid case against the officials of lashkar police station, mysore, and thereafter conducted a trap, in which, one police constable attached to the said police station by name basavaraj and his friend chandrashekar were trapped and they were caught red-handed while accepting the bribe money from the complainant and immediately both of them were arrested. when they were produced before the special judge initially they were remanded to judicial custody, subsequently, they have been enlarged on bail by the special judge. on the basis of the certain allegations made in the complaint against the lst petitioner-police inspector, lashkar police station, mysore, he has also been arraigned as accused in the charge sheet filed, after completion of the investigation. therefore, apprehending his arrest, the 1st petitioner has sought for the relief of anticipatory bail. his application sled before the special judge under section 438 cr.p.c. came to be rejected on the ground that his presence is required for further investigation. perusal of the complaint allegations do not prima facie indicate any case against the 1st petitioner and the only allegation made against the 1st petitioner in the complaint is that the jeep driver and police constable used to visit the shop of the complainant and were demanding mamoolu stating that it is to be paid to the sub-inspector. there is no prima facie material to indicate that the 1st petitioner had demanded any mamoolu from the complainant.3. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record, at this stage, i do not see any reasonable grounds to believe that the 1st petitioner is guilty of any of the offences alleged by the respondent-police. admittedly, the lst petitioner has been arraigned as accused in the charge sheet. therefore, his apprehension that he is likely to be arrested is well-founded. in view of the fact that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the 1st petitioner has committed any offence alleged against him, he is entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail.4. accordingly, the petition is allowed, insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned. the respondent is directed to release the 1st petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with cr. no. 6.2009 of lokayukta police station, mysore, upon his executing a personal bond for a sum of rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer with further conditions that he shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner and that he shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required by him.