A PRASAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under S. 438 Crl.P.C., 1973, on behalf of one A. Prasad of Lakkondahalli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Dt. On the allegation that he and others, forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, had assaulted and caused the death of one Satish on 25-4-1981 at about 23-00 hours (11p.m.) in a house in the H.M.T.Colony in Bangalore City, the Jalahalli police station has registered a case against them for offences under Ss. 143, 145, 147, 148, 149, 448, 427 and 302 IPC and has sent an F.I.R., to the court. Prasad apprehends arrest by the police in this connection and hence has moved this Court for an anticipatory bail. His case is that the accusation against him is false; that it has. been made in view of party feelings; that the police were pursuing this matter with vengeance and were trying false and baseless evidence against him that he is a member of a family, having a respectable status and owning houses and other properties; that he is the holder of B.A., degree from the Bangalore University and is studying Law, being a student of the 1st LL.B., class; that he is an innocent person and does not have any past record of crime and that his reputation and character are impeccable; that he is also a chronic patient suffering from severe piles; that he has to sit for the Law examination which is likely to take place soon; that he will abide by any terms and conditions that may be put by the Court; and that, in the circumstances, he may be granted anticipatory bail.

(2.) In support of these averments Sri R. N. Byra Peddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, very persuasively and forcibly argued, placing reliance on a number of decisions of the Supreme Court touching the question of granting of anticipatory bail by superior Courts and also drawing my attention to (the evolution of law in this regard not merely in this Country but also outside and in particular the United States of America, that granting of bail is the rule and refusal, an exception.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader opposed this petition arguing that this petitioner was the leader of that unlawful assembly which had indulged in this heinous crime in the dead of night When the victim was sleeping in his house, by gaining entrance into the house forcibly. It is his further case that the fatal blow that had taken away the life of the victim had been given by this petitioner and that he and his friends had indulged in this act of violence due to past enemity between himself and his people on the one side and the victim and possibly a few others on the other.