Karnataka High Court
Laxman Poojary vs State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5883/2022
BETWEEN
LAXMAN POOJARY
S/O GANAPA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT GANGOLLI VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576282
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAGADEESHA B N, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GANGOLLI POLICE STATION
UDUPI DISTRICT
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H S SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.52/2022 OF GANGOLLI
P.S., UDUPI DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148,
447, 323, 354, 506, 149, 326 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.52/2022 registered by the Gangolli Police Station, Udupi, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 354, 506, 149, 326 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that accused No.1 had borrowed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from SKS Sangha in the name of the complainant but the same has not been repaid inspite of demand made by the complainant and that on 13.06.2022 at 9.00 p.m, accused No.1 along with the petitioner/accused No.2, her son-accused No.3 and daughter- accused No.4 trespassed the property of the complainant and took up a quarrel regarding non-payment of the loan amount by accused No.1. Accused No.1 assaulted the complainant on her cheeks, accused No.3 by holding the hands of the complainant abused in a filthy language and pulled the nightie of the 3 complainant and by hearing the screaming the sound, the husband of the complainant rushed to the spot and tried to pacify the incident, this petitioner assault the husband of the complainant with the brick on his face and this petitioner along with other accused persons assaulted the complainant and her husband with their hands and legs and also caused life threat to them as a result, the husband of the complainant sustained grievous injuries on his face. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case against this petitioner along with other accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner and the complainant are the neighbourers and the counter case is also filed wherein the specific allegation is made that Rs.30,000/- amount was received and the same was not repaid hence, there was an ill- will between the parties and the counsel also submits that the injured is out of danger and other accused persons have been enlarged on bail and the allegation against this petitioner is that he assaulted the husband of the complainant with brick and in view of the case and counter case between the parities and the 4 offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment, it is a fit case enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the other complaint is filed on the basis of after thought and the present complaint is registered in Cr.No.52/2022 and subsequently based on the after thought, another complaint was registered in Cr.No.53/2022 and the husband of the complainant had sustained grievous injuries and merely because the injured is out of danger, is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the specific overt act allegation is made against this petitioner is that he assaulted the husband of the complainant with brick as a result, his teeth were broken hence, there is a prima facie case against this petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the material available on record it discloses that the petitioner and the complainant are the neighbourer and also looking into the contents of the complaint that there is a financial transaction between the parties for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was taken by 5 accused No.1 in the name of the complainant and the same has not been repaid to the society and in the counter case also there is a financial transaction of Rs.30,000/- between the parties and the same also not repaid. Hence, the Court has to take note of the circumstances under which the alleged incident was taken place and when both of them are neighbourers and apart from that injured is also out of danger and taking note of the gravity of the offences and accusations made in the complaint and particularly the case and counter case are registered between the parties, It is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the plaintiff under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.2 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.52/2022 registered by the Gangolli Police Station, Udupi, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 354, 506, 149, 326 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-6
(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the
Investigating Officer to complete the
investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the Investigating Officer till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier. 7
(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE SN