STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NARAYANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition is filed by the State under Section 439(2) read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. praying to cancel the bail granted to the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 141/1989 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar.

(2.) I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the respondent fully and I have perused the records.

(3.) The Sidlaghatta Town Police have registered a case in Crime No. 14/1989 against the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 401, I.P.C. The offences alleged against the respondent-accused are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail in a case punishable with death or imprisonment for life at the stage when the case was being investigated. It appears that the respondent has filed an earlier application and that came to be dismissed on the ground that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a murder case. But, subsequently in view of the ruling of this Court reported in I.Y. Chanda Earappa v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1989 Karnataka 2882: (1989 Cri LJ 2405) holding anticipatory bail can be granted even in murder cases, the respondent filed another application and it came to be allowed by the Sessions Judge. I have gone through the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kolar. There cannot be any dispute regarding the proposition of law that the Court has got power to grant anticipatory bail even in murder cases. But, the power of granting of anticipatory bail is discretionary and the discretion vested in the Court is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or capriciously. When a Judge grants bail or anticipatory bail in any case, much more so in cases of murder, he is required to give cogent, judicious and proper reasons in support of his order. The learned Sessions Judge of Kolar Mr. B. Padmaraj has not applied his mind to the facts of the case and has not given any cogent, judicious and convincing reasons in support of his order. His order consists of 13 paragraphs. Paras 1 to 11 are devoted to the mentioning of the facts of the prosecution case, the law governing the granting of anticipatory bail and the contentions of the Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel for the State. In para 12 of his order, the learned Sessions Judge has mentioned the evidence that is to be found in the material collected by the investigating agency. In para 13, he observes as follows:-