M P JAYARAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appllca'ion for bail is one under Sec.439 of the CrlPC and is filed in this Court after bail was prayed for and refused in the Court of Sessions. The case against the petitioner is one under S.307 read with S.149 of the 1PC. It is stated that on 25-1-1977 at about 11-15 a.m. the petitioner along with several others went to the Court of the 4th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, where some case was to be heard in which one Gopi was his adversary. At that time the petitioner is stated to have hidden his sword under a green shawl and when he found Gopi in the Court he brandished that sword and caused two piercing wounds on the chest of Gopi. Thereafter, Gopi is stated to have run inside the Court room. He was pursued by the companions of the petitioners and was assaulted in the Court room. The incident having taken place in broad day light was witnessed by several persons and the order of the learned Sessions Judge discloses that there are as many, as six eye-witnesses who saw the petitioner brandishing the sword and causing the chest injuries. Gopi as stated by the prosecution, received 15 injuries, most of which are incised wounds. It is also stated that the petitioner after committing the assault made good his escape and was subsequently apprehended. On these allegations made on behalf of the prosecution, a case under S.307 read with S.149 of the IPC is sought to be instituted against the petitioner and his companion- accused .

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge has refused bail and the present petition is directed against that order. Sri V.Balarathnam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner with his usual learning and insistence argued that the power of the High Court under S.439 CrlPC is much wider in application to grant bail. The learned Counsel also contended that there are other circumstances which according to him render the case unnatural and thereby concluded thai the petitioner would not have committed the ofence. As regards the first contention of the learned Counsel, the answer is found in the observation of their Lordships in The Stcre v. Captain Jagjit Singh AIR,- 1962 SC, 253, wherein it was held that in a case where the offence is non-bailable, further considerations arise and the Court has to found the question for the grant of bail in the light of such further considerations such as nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public or State, and similar other circumstances which arise when a Cour'. is asked for bail in a non-bailable offence. In my opinion, the ratio of that decision is, that the test of "reasonable ground" as laid down in Sec.437 CrlPC, having been satisfied and the person found guilty of an ofence punishable with death and imprisonment for life. even then some thing more is required to be satisfied before he can be released on bail. It cannot be stated that the power of the High Court is unfettered and even if no additional grounds are made out, bail should be granted as a joutine. Had it been to every accused instead of going to the Magistrate 101 grant cf bail would come straight to the Sessions Court or the High Court. That would rather render S.437 defunet at any rate, in most of the cases leaving those in which the accused is infirm, a minor or a woman. That could not be the intention of the Legislature As regards the other contention of the learned Counsel, it was stated that the petitioner would have fasily been apprehended when so many persrns were present, including the Police personnel in the Court compound. Be that as it may, the fac of the matter is that there are as many as six eye-witnesses whose evidence is yet to be considered. That apart, s3rious injuries in sufficient number were inflicted on Gopi and the petitioner is stated to have caused two of them on a vital part of the body. The prosecution case is that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and as such whatever assault was committed by one accused was the responsibility of the others.

(3.) The learned State 'Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the petitioner was involved in several criminal cases. In fact, the contention of th,e. learned Counsel for the petitioner has been that there were cases and counter cases between the petitioner and his party on the one side and Gopi and his party on the other side. In that connection it seems several criminal cases were filed and as submitted by the learned State Public Prosecutor, Gopi was accused in several of such Cases. He was on bail and he committed the present offences while on bail in the other cases. That was an additional reason as pointed out by the learned Counsel for refusing the bail.