HANUMANTHEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are two of the accused in crime No. 99 of 1996 of vidyaranyapura police station, Bangalore registered for offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 448, 427, 504, 506 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. The petitioners voluntarily surrendered before the learned chief metropolitan magistrate and sought bail under Section 436, Criminal Procedure Code, since all the offences alleged against them are bailable offences. The learned magistrate accepted the surrender of the petitioners and on consideration of the application filed by them under Section 436, Criminal Procedure Code, they were released on bail by his order dated 25-6-1996. While passing the Order, the learned magistrate has imposed certain conditions and one of the conditions is that they shall appear before the investigating officer once in three days for a period of three months from the next day of passing of the order. Further the petitioners were also directed not to tamper with prosecution witnesses and that they should not leave the jurisdiction of the court till the completion of the investigation without the prior permission of the investigating officer. In this petition, the petitioners have made a prayer to relax the conditions imposed on them directing them to appear before the investigating officer once in three days for a period of 3 months.

(2.) THE state has filed objections for relaxation of the conditions. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned high court government pleader for the state.

(3.) SRI hasmath pasha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the offences alleged against the petitioners in the case are all bailable offences and as a matter of right the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. It is submitted that when the court released the petitioners on bail under Section 436, Cr. P. C. , the court releasing them on bail cannot impose conditions other than directing furnishing of surety to ensure the attendance of the accused. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment in the case of kota appalakonda and others. The division bench of the Madras High Court in the said judgment where the petitioner therein was released on bail for bailable offence, considering whether any conditions can be imposed while releasing the persons on bail under Section 496, Cr. P. C. of 1986, which is now Section 436, Cr. P. C. , held that with regard to non-bailable offence, the magistrate has an option to grant bail or refuse the bail and he has also power to impose conditions. But with regard to bailable offence, a magistrate has no discretion and in such case, the magistrate must release the accused persons on bail provided that he is willing to execute bonds for his appearance. It is also held that if the magistrate imposes extraneous conditions like directing the accused not to enter the disputed land, it would mean that if the condition were not fulfilled, he would have to refuse bail, but that is not permitted under the Provisions of Section 496, Cr. P. C. , which is equivalent to Section 436 of the present code. In the said case, their lordships did not upheld the condition imposed by the magistrate other than the one directing him to execute bond and furnishing a surety. In another case district magistrate of vizagapatam, referring officer, the Madras high court has held that in bailable offences, there is no question of discretion in granting bail as the words of Section 496 (present Section 436 of the code) are imperative. The only choice for the court is as between taking a simple recognizance of the principal offender or demanding security with surety. The criminal court has no discretion in bailable offence while granting bail to impose any condition except demanding of security with surety. Sections 436 to 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows: