Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.76/2020 of Channapattana Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 324, 353, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.04.2020, while the police constable attached to Maddur police station was on duty at Nidaghatta Check Post, one white colour Innova car came to the checkpost and when the first informant and others started inspecting the vehicle, the driver of the said vehicle started hurling abusive words, snatched the lathi from the first informant and assaulted him with the said lathi on his hands and threatened to run over the vehicle and thereafter went towards Mysore.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner on the ground that he was the person behind the wheel of the Innova car. He submits that in view of the apprehension of arrest, he has filed the present petition seeking anticipatory bail.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that FIR has been registered against unknown persons and even the registration number of the vehicle is not mentioned in the FIR. However, the police are trying to apprehend the petitioner. He submits that the offence alleged are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, the learned HCGP contends that the investigation is still pending and the participation of the petitioner is required to be ascertained. He further submits that the petitioner without approaching the Sessions Court has directly approached this Court for the relief. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. At the outset, it is noticed that the petitioner has filed a petition before the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail through e-mail in view of non-sitting of the regular court due to lock down. The learned Sessions Judge has refused to entertain the bail petition on the ground that there is no extreme urgency made out.
8. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in the aforesaid case registered by the respondent-police. It is no doubt true that unless the petitioner exhausts his remedy before the Sessions court, he is not entitled to approach this Court directly seeking a relief of anticipatory bail though there is a concurrent jurisdiction. This is a consistent and salutary practice. If this is deviated then it would definitely open flood gates for application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the High Court. However, if a particular case appears to be unusual or under extra-ordinary circumstance or if there is such an exigency that the affected party cannot seek his remedy before the Court of Sessions, then there is no bar or impediment for entertaining the application for anticipatory bail directly in the High Court. The discretion vests in the judge hearing such application.
9. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has declined to entertain the petition on the ground that extreme urgency is not made out. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court. In view of the lock down imposed due to the out break of a pandemic namely covid-19 and keeping in view the unusual and extraordinary circumstance and also in view of rejection of the application by the Sessions Court, I deem it appropriate to entertain this petition.
10. The name of the petitioner is not found in the FIR. On the ground that he is the owner of an Innova car, it is stated that the police are making hectic efforts to arrest him. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offences alleged, the petitioner is entitled for the relief he has sought for in this petition. Accordingly, I pass the following. ORDER The petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.76/2020 of Channapattana Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 324, 353, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC, he shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions :
(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of two weeks from today and shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1 Lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
(ii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation of the case.
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and shall not hamper the prosecution case in any manner. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the petitioners counsel via e-mail. Sd/- JUDGE snc*