Karnataka High Court
Sri. L. Sampathkumar vs State By Chikkajala Police Station on 13 November, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7898 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. L. Sampathkumar
Son of late Lakshmaiah,
Age about 35 years,
Residing at Sonnapanahalli Village,
Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk - 64.
2. Sri. Narendra
Son of Narayanaswamy
Age about 27 years,
3. Sri. Mahesha
S/o Narayanaswamy
Age about 30 years
The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are
Residing at Bettahalasuru Village,
Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk - 64.
...Petitioners
(By Sri. Roopesh .B, Advocate)
AND:
State by Chikkajala Police Station,
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
....Respondent
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP)
2
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the
event of their arrest in Cr. No.80/2017 of Chikkajala
Police Station, Bangalore City for the offence P/U/S 120,
307, 403, 420, 423, 425, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467 and
468 of IPC and Section 3(1) (IV)(V)(VI)(IX) and 15(ii) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
This criminal petition coming on for Orders this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent police to release the petitioners/accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 on bail in the event of the their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120, 307, 403, 420, 423, 425, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467 and 468 of IPC read with Section 3(1) (4)(5)(6)(9) and Section 15(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered in respondent - police station, Crime No.80/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City rejecting the bail application of the petitioners and also other materials produced in the case.
4. Looking to the complaint averments that there is a dispute for the sale of alleged family properties for an amount of Rs.7 Crores and petitioner No.1 herein has not at all shared the same with the other family members and in that connection, there was quarrel between the complainant and the petitioners. It is alleged in the complaint that petitioner No.1 herein with an intention to take more amount, cheated other sharers and further allegation is that, in that connection, the accused persons took up quarrel on 11.10.2016 at 4.00 p.m. and accused No.3, who is petitioner No.1 herein 4 assaulted the complainant and his family members with the club and caused injuries and they have taken the treatment.
5. Perusing the materials so far as injuries is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner made submission that the Doctor has issued medical certificate in respect of Srinivas .L. Looking to the said certificate, the Doctor mentioned that there was a bleeding from the nostril and the injured, still in the hospital.
6. So far as allegations of the complainant, that for the sale of property, share is not given to other sharers. Prima facie, it is severe in nature. Except the alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC, all other alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate Court. Even with regard to the filing of the complaint is concerned, the incident took place on 11.10.2016. Private complaint came to be filed on 26.04.2017 i.e., after lapse of six 5 months. I have examined the materials. Even Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act will not attract to the case. At this stage, the allegations will not constitute the offences under the Provisions of SC and ST (POA) Act. The petitioners contended that they are innocent and not at all committed alleged offences and they are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, by imposing stringent conditions, they can be admitted to anticipatory bail.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioners - accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120, 307, 403, 420, 423, 425, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467 and 468 of IPC read with Section 3(1) (4)(5)(6)(9) and Section 15(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered in respondent - police station, Crime No.80/2017, subject to the following conditions: 6
a) Petitioners/Accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/-
each (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and shall furnish one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
b) Petitioners/Accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
c) Petitioners/Accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
d) Petitioners/Accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute their respective personal and surety bonds.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBM