The Special Court in Bengaluru, exclusively established to deal with criminal cases related to elected former and sitting MPs and MLAs in Karnataka, has granted anticipatory bail to MLA Sharath Bache Gowda and 88 other individuals. The order, passed by Judge B. Jayantha Kumar, comes in connection with a 2019 case involving allegations of unlawful assembly, rioting, and obstructing public servants during the inauguration of a new bus terminal in Hosakote Town.

The legal proceedings were initiated following a complaint lodged by the Circle Police Inspector of Hosakote, stemming from an incident on June 15, 2019. The petitioners, led by Sharath Bache Gowda, approached the court seeking protection from arrest under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, citing their respectability in society and the fact that the investigation in the case had already been completed.

The Genesis of the Case: Protests and Political Friction

According to the prosecution’s case, the incident took place during the inaugural function of the New Bus Terminal at Hosakote Town. The police alleged that a mob of 100 to 150 members, reportedly headed by Sharath Bache Gowda and other local leaders, formed an unlawful assembly without prior permission. The group allegedly barged toward the stage, pushed through police barricades, and violated orders issued by senior police officials and the Taluk Magistrate.

The complaint further stated that the protesters chanted political slogans and physically obstructed public servants from performing their duties. The situation escalated when members of the mob allegedly broke chairs, tables, and flower pots arranged for the ceremony, demanding that the programme be halted immediately. To control the situation, the police resorted to a lathi charge to disperse the crowd. In the ensuing chaos, several police personnel, including a Deputy Superintendent of Police and two lady police officers, sustained injuries.

Charges and Legal Contentions

The Hosakote Police had registered the First Information Report under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. These included Section 143 for being a member of an unlawful assembly, Section 147 for rioting, Section 188 for disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant, Section 353 for assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty, Section 354 for assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, Section 332 for voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty, and Section 427 for mischief causing damage to property, all read with Section 149 for offenses committed in prosecution of a common object.

The petitioners argued that they had been falsely implicated by the police for political reasons. They maintained that they were not present at the spot or involved in the alleged violence. Furthermore, they pointed out that the High Court of Karnataka had previously quashed the charges under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in an earlier writ petition.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, arguing that the accused had failed to appear before the Trial Court despite being issued summons. The state expressed concerns that if granted bail, the petitioners might threaten witnesses, abscond, or commit similar offenses.

Judicial Reasoning: Bail as a Right Post-Investigation

In the ruling, Judge B. Jayantha Kumar emphasized the settled legal position regarding anticipatory bail. The court noted that since the police had already filed the charge sheet, the petitioners were no longer required for custodial interrogation. The judge observed that the offenses alleged, while serious, were not punishable by death or life imprisonment.

The court relied on various precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Aman Preet Singh vs. CBI, which held that if an individual has not been arrested during the investigation, it is generally inappropriate to incarcerate them merely because a charge sheet has been filed. The court remarked that the objective of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to prevent undue harassment through pre-trial arrest and detention.

Addressing the prosecution’s concern about the accused not appearing despite summons, the court held that the issuance of summons or even a warrant does not bar a person from seeking anticipatory bail, provided they have not intentionally evaded the court after previously appearing.

Conditions Imposed by the Special Court

While granting the relief, the court imposed a set of strict conditions to ensure the petitioners’ cooperation with the judicial process. Each petitioner is required to execute a personal bond of 50,000 Rupees with one surety for a similar amount.

The court further mandated that the petitioners must surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks of the order. Upon such surrender, the police are authorized to formally arrest them and immediately release them on bail, subject to the verification of their identities and residential addresses. The petitioners are strictly prohibited from absconding, destroying evidence, or threatening witnesses. They must also appear before the police whenever directed for further inquiries.

The court also noted discrepancies in the names and father’s names of some petitioners as listed in the petition versus the charge sheet, directing the police to perform thorough identity verification before processing the release. This order effectively shields the 89 individuals, including the sitting MLA, from custodial detention as the case moves toward the trial stage.