E.S. PRASANNA POLICE CONSTABLE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA MADIKERI RURAL P.S., REPRESENTED BY S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is accused No. I in Crime No.212/2011 registered by Madikeri Rural Police, Kodagu District, for the offences punishable under Sections 295A, 506 read with Section. 34 of I.P.C.

(2.) THE complainant is one Rajesh. He has alleged that accused No.1 with two other accused i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3 are involved in compelling innocent, downtrodden and poor people to convert themselves into another religion by showing some monetary benefit and also indulging in anti -canvassing the other religion and thereby, hurting the religious feelings of the people of other faith. It is in pursuance of the said complaint, crime has been registered and the matter is under investigation. This petitioner was arrested on the very clay when the complaint was filed and he has been in judicial custody from 06.12.2011.

(3.) SRI Avi Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, even the averments made in the complaint do not make out a case for an offence punishable under Section 295A of IPC. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 45 days. Offence under Section 295A IPC is punishable with only three years imprisonment. Petitioner's liberty cannot be curtailed as there is no reason to keep him in judicial custody. The object of detention is neither punitive nor preventative, but it is only precautionary. The petitioner will not either tamper the prosecution evidence or will be involved in other crime as the allegations against the accused is that they induced the complainant and others to convert themselves into another religion and such statement is already recorded. He has also relied upon the recent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2011 (4) RCR (Cri) 898 in the matter of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI and submitted that the Apex Court, while considering the claims for grant of bail at para 14 has held thus : 14) In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un -convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un -convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. He further submitted that there are two cases against the petitioner, one for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and which ended in imprisoning the petitioner for one month and another crime registered in Crime No.64/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 295 -A IPC and other offences. He submitted that merely because the petitioner has been convicted with one month imprisonment, which is now pending in appeal, he cannot be termed as a habitual offender. He also submitted that there are complaints filed by the petitioner against the persons shown in the present complaint and chargesheet has been filed against the said persons. This complaint is an counterblast to the complaint filed by the petitioner.