Anoop Kumar K vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2017

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Anoop Kumar K vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2017

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

                               1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                     BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2017

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.4987 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

1.     Anoop Kumar.K,
       26 years,
       S/o Johny D'Souza,
       Kudrepady House, Malipady Post,
       Kudlu Via Kasargud - 575 013.

2.     Vasanth.M,
       26 years,
       S/o Krishnappa Poojary,
       Paltady House, Paltady Post,
       Puttur Taluk - 574 201.
                                          ...Petitioners

(By Shri. Akshay Jain, Advocate, for
Shri Aditya Kamath, Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka,
By the Padubidri Police Station,
By the State Public Prosecutor,
                                 2




High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru - 560 001.
                                                   ...Respondent

(By Shri B.Vishweshwaraiah, Government Pleader)

       This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to enlarge the
petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.80/2016
of Padubidri P.S., Udupi for the offence punishable under
Section 323, 324, 307, 506, 354, 143, 147, 148 r/w 149 of IPC.

      This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
court made the following:


                            ORDER

The petitioner is said to be a humble daily wager. It transpires that there was a dog in the house, next to the place of work, belonging to the complainant's aunt which was causing nuisance and the petitioners had therefore requested the owner of the dog to confine it, at which the complainant has lodged a false complaint. It transpires that there is a second complaint by the employer of the petitioners alleging assault by the complainant's aunt and another. It is therefore allegations and counter allegations, all because of the dog belonging to the 3 complainant's aunt. Therefore, the petitioners being apprehensive of arrest, since the complainant has invoked several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 including, an attempt to murder, the Police have taken a serious view and if the petitioners are arrested, as they are the sole bread-winners of their family, not only the petitioners but their family members would be affected and hence seek anticipatory bail.

2. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations, it is always open to the petitioners to approach the court below and seek regular bail The petitioners however apprehend that if the petitioners should approach the court below, either on account of pressure of work or otherwise, the applications for bail may not be immediately considered and it is likely that they will be taken into custody and they would languish in custody till such time appropriate orders are passed on the bail applications.

3. This apprehension is ill-founded. The court below is requested to consider their applications for bail with expedition and in the event it is delayed, the petitioners shall not be taken into custody.

With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE nv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court