Karnataka High Court
Ambarisha vs State Of Karnataka on 2 January, 2017
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JANUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6290 of 2016
BETWEEN:
Ambarisha,
Son of Katappa,
Aged about 32 years,
Residing at Krishna Layout,
Near Vaishnawi Temple,
7th Cross, Hulimavu,
Bangalore Rural District - 562 106.
Now in Judicial Custody,
Central Prison,
Bangalore.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri Manjunatha G., Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka by
Bannerughatta Police,
Bangalore - 560 079.
(represented by learned
State Public Prosecutor)
...RESPONDENT
2
(By Shri S. Vishwamurthy, Government Pleader )
*****
This Criminal Petition filed under Section 439 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the petitioner in
bail in Crime No.33/2016 of Bannerghatta Police Station,
Bangalore District for the offence punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 120(B), 302 and 279 read with 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
This court, by its order dated 17.10.2016 in Crl.P.6654/2016, has considered the case of Accused No.3 who is implicated along with this petitioner who is Accused No.1, on the ground of having assaulted the deceased. The incident took place on 19.02.2016 and the petitioner herein was arrested on 23.03.2016 along with Accused No.3, on the basis of the statement of an eye-witness which was recorded subsequently on 5.3.2016. This court has noticed that the investigation had been completed and the circumstance that the statement of the eye-witness was recorded almost a month after the incident on 3 the basis of which the petitioner and Accused No.3 were implicated, has thought it fit to grant bail to Accused No.3. Accordingly, the present petitioner on a parity of reasoning, is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the court below.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
(iii) The petitioner shall attend the court on all dates of hearing and shall co-operate with the Investigating Authority.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court below without prior permission.
2. It is further noticed that the present petitioner had obtained interim bail on medical grounds, which was granted initially for a period of two months on the ground that he was to 4 undergo surgery for hernia. It was later found on medical opinion that the petitioner was not ready to undergo surgery and therefore the interim bail granted by this court had spent itself out. The petitioner had been taken into custody by the Trial Court and his bail petition having been rejected, he continues to be in custody. Therefore, the application I.A.2/2016 seeking extension of interim bail does not survive for consideration. The same is disposed of as having become redundant. The petition however having been considered on merits, is allowed in terms as above.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS