Naveen P vs. The State By

Held

The Court decided to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Naveen P. (accused No. 6), under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The Court found that the petitioner is not involved in any other cases and that other co-accused have already been granted bail. The Court noted that the investigation is complete and a charge-sheet has been filed. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru and is willing to abide by any conditions. The Court reasoned that granting bail, subject to conditions, would not cause prejudice to the prosecution's case. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the case. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to specific conditions including executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, surrendering within 15 days, not indulging in similar offences, being deemed in custody for recovery purposes, and appearing before the Investigating Officer as and when called. The Court also noted that the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file an additional charge-sheet if additional material is found against the petitioner. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Naveen P., sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No. 243/2018, registered at Basavanagudi Police Station for offences under Section 384 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that on September 20, 2018, four individuals, posing as representatives of 'Praja TV', extorted Rs. 85,000 from the complainant, Dheerendar Sen, a garment shop owner. They threatened to telecast a story about his alleged non-issuance of bills and non-payment of GST if he did not pay the demanded sum of Rs. 3,00,000. The complainant later identified the individuals at the police station and realized they were not from the TV channel. The police registered a case and arrested four persons, recovering Rs. 45,000. The petitioner is named as accused No. 6 in the charge-sheet, and other accused have been granted bail. The investigation is complete, and a charge-sheet has been filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 243/2018 for offences under Section 384 read with Section 34 of the IPC? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that he is apprehending arrest and that other co-accused (accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4) have already been granted bail. He stated that he is not involved in any other cases, is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, and is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the court. He contended that granting bail would not prejudice the prosecution's case as the investigation is complete and a charge-sheet has been filed. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondent-State, through the High Court Government Pleader, presented the prosecution's case. The judgment notes that the police initially registered the case under Section 384 of IPC but later stated in the charge-sheet that the offence was dacoity under Section 395 of IPC. The State did not explicitly argue against the grant of bail but presented the facts of the case.