Syed Imran vs The State of Karnataka. Criminal Petition 5785/2020 decided on 23 November 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/352769/1/CRLP5785-20-23-11-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: 9. It is not in dispute that on 11.08.2020 about two thousand to three thousand miscreants gathered at about 8.00 pm by holding deadly weapons and have barged into the house of respondent No.2. They have not only destroyed all the household articles but have also looted gold and silver ornaments, as well as cash property documents. Thereafter they set the entire house on fire including the vehicles, two police stations, 86 private vehicles and 57 police vehicles. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for petitioner-accused that the gravity of the offences cannot be a ground to deny bail and grant or refuse to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court and it will be related to a larger extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In that light he has relied upon the decision in the case of Sanjay Chandra V.s Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 ““40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.”
15…..The primary purpose of bail in criminal cases is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and also to relieve the said burden of keeping him in jail during a pending trial. At the same time to keep the accused in the custody of the Court whether before or after the conviction to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and will be in attendance there on whenever his presence is required. It is also noticed from the said decisions quoted supra, that while granting or refusing bail the Court has to take into consideration certain aspects. So in that light, I want to rely upon decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sidramappa Sathalingam Methri V.s State of Maharashtra reported in (2011)1 SCC 684 and subsequently Hon’ble Apex Court has re-visited the said decision in the case of Susheel Agarwal V.s State reported in (2020) Volume 5 SCC 1. Ultimately, the Court has laid down certain guidelines on the basis of which a bail application has could be considered with reference to the
facts of each of the cases at hand. It is brought to the notice of this Court in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda V.s State of Karnataka and another reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406 that Sanjay Chandra case, cannot be made applicable in each and every case for grant of bail.
18. Be that as it may as could be seen from the records, accused persons not only barged into the house of respondent No.2 and looted, destroyed house hold articles, they have burnt public properties i.e., two police stations, 86 private vehicles and 57 police vehicles. It shows that accused persons have taken law into their hands and have damaged the property and have created commotion in the society. Such act should not be encouraged. Bail petitions dismissed.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 