Praveena @ Motu vs The State By Jayanagara on 18 November, 2022

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Praveena @ Motu vs The State By Jayanagara on 18 November, 2022

Bench: Rajendra Badamikar

                         1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

                     BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

       CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10588 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

PRAVEENA @ MOTU
S/O MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O OPP. VIJAYA AGENCIES,
SARVAR LINE ROAD,
SHIVAMOGGA, SHIVAMOGGA
DISTRICT PIN-577201
(NOW IN JC, SHIVAMOGGA)
                                       ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. N.R.KRISHNAPPA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE BY JAYANAGARA
POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
                                      ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN CR.NO.75/2022 OF JAYANAGARA P.S.,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 341, 504, 506, 354B, 323, 307 R/W
                              2

SECTION 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                         ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for enlarging him on regular bail in Crime No.75/2022 of Jayanagara Police Station, Shivamogga District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 354(B), 323, 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for State. Perused the records.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that on 11.09.2022 evening between 7.15 p.m., to 7.30 p.m., the petitioner along with his associates restrained the mother of the complainant from moving out of the tea stall and then abused her in filthy language and assaulted her. It is also alleged that he dragged her saree and outraged her modesty and attempted to stab her by a broken glass. Then the complainant intervened and when 3 the persons gathered there and the petitioner along with his associates also threatened the complainant and fled from the spot. In this regard the complaint came to be lodged. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant the Investigating Officer apprehended the present petitioner and he was remanded to judicial custody.

4. The petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge and learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition filed by the petitioner. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, the allegations disclose that the petitioner has wrongfully restrained the mother of the complainant from moving outside her tea stall and then assaulted her by abusing her in filthy language and outraged her modesty and attempted to stab her by broken glass. She suffered injuries and was unconscious and was shifted to the hospital. However, the records further disclose that the mother of the complainant i.e., the victim has suffered 4 simple injuries and she has not suffered any of the grievous injury. On the contrary the records further disclose that the petitioner has also lodged a complaint in Megan Hospital by getting himself admitted. Wherein he alleged that on the same day at 7.15 a.m when he has visited the tea stall of the victim the dog bite him and when he attempted to hit the dog by water bottle the victim namely Vanajakshamma abused him in filthy language and assaulted him by hands then he pushed her. She came with the iron rod and assaulted him and then the other persons assembled there also assaulted him. The records further disclose that he was admitted in Megan Hospital on 12.09.2022 and he suffered simple injury. These records clearly disclose that there are case and counter cases.

6. No doubt the complainant was not prosecuted in the counter case lodged by the present petitioner but the victim in the instant case Vanajakshamma was arraigned as accused No.3. The injuries sustained by both the parties are simple in nature. The petitioner is in custody since 5 13.09.2022 and his presence is no more required by the Investigating Agency. Looking to these facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion petitioner can be admitted on regular bail, subject to certain conditions which will counter the apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP. Hence, petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass following:-:-

ORDER The petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail in Crime No.75/2022 of Jayanagara Police Station, Shivamogga District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 354(B), 323, 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC. on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, subject to following conditions:-

i) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences;

iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Trial Court;

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Court, on all the dates of hearing, unless they were exempted by a specific order.

Sd/-

JUDGE VS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court