SHANKAR HANAMANT KARANING Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for grant of bail. The petitioner has submitted in his application that incidents of some seriousness took place in Gokak town on the evening of 23-4-1994 as a result of which the police authorities have registered a series of offences. We are here concerned with the first of the incidents wherein it is alleged that a crowd of persons lead by the petitioner is supposed to have attacked the deceased Chandru at about 6.30 p.m. with deadly weapons as a result of which he sustained fatal injuries and subsequently died. Since there were a large number of persons who took part in the incident, the police have registered offences inter alia under Section 302, but they have also invoked the charge of rioting an unlawful assembly. According to the petitioner, he belongs to a particular political party and is an ex-M.L.A. and he was unsuccessful in the last election. It is the contention that there is bitter political rivalry in that place and furthermore, he contends that there was also a serious tussle with regard to the leadership of one of the mills 'union'. It is his submission that having regard to this super-charged background, that when the incident took place the petitioner was falsely implicated in the same by his rivals in order to ensure that he is taken into custody. He supports his plea by pointing out that it has come on record that a large crowd of persons had attacked his house on that date and that the police had to resort to firing and that in fact, his statement has been recorded in two of the C.Rs. The most important ground canvassed by the petitioner is that having regard to the seriousness of the atmosphere in that town, that he had apprehended danger to his life and property which is why the State had afforded him police protection and that there was always a group of six police constables watching his residence as also his movements. He has, therefore, submitted that having regard to this last factor, that it is quite inconceivable that he could have taken part in an incident involving assault and murder if the police were around him at that time.

(2.) Petitioner's learned advocate has urged two other very strong grounds. In the first instance, he submitted that there are conflicts in that town and that as far as the victim and the witnesses in this case are concerned, that they admittedly belong to the rival group. He submits that even though this may not be the stage for appreciating the evidence, that the Court can take into account the fact that there would be a normal and natural bias, but his principal submission is that since the evidence is to come from persons in that category over whom the petitioner cannot exert any influence of any type, that this is a case in which it cannot be alleged that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, that he would in any manner be able to tamper with or interfere with the evidence.

(3.) The next plea canvassed by the learned counsel is basically the state of health of the petitioner. He states that the petitioner is aged 70 years, that he has had a history of health complications particularly High Blood Pressure with allied medical problems, that he was under treatment even before the incident took place, that he requires specialised medical treatment and that he runs a grave risk if this is denied to him. He submits that even if the petitioner were to be enlarged on bail, that he would virtually have to spend his time in hospital having regard to his sick condition and even demonstrates to me that in the course of the last two impose, the petitioner has been hospitalised under the orders of the trial Court because his health is in a bad condition. What the learned counsel is essentially submitting is that quite apart from any other factor, that the petitioner is physically in such a condition that he cannot create any problems to the prosecution. He also alludes to the fact that the status and background of the petitioner is such that even the prosecution has not alleged that he would abscond if he is released on bail. Cumulatively, therefore, it is submitted that this is a fit case in which bail ought to be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1984 SC 372 : (1984 Cri LJ 160) in the case of Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat. In particular, the learned counsel has relied on the observations of the Supreme Court wherein it has been observed,