Sri. Dayananda vs State By Girinagar Police on 12 February, 2018

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Dayananda vs State By Girinagar Police on 12 February, 2018

Bench: R.B Budihal

                              1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
                            BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.269/2018

BETWEEN:

Sri Dayananda
S/o Ramakrishnappa
Aged about 36 years
R/at No.26, 3rd Cross
3rd Block, Tyagarajanagar
Bengaluru-560 070.                          ... PETITIONER

(By Sri Hemachandra Rai, Adv.
 for Sri Manjunath K, Adv.)

AND:

State by Girinagar Police
Bengaluru
Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor
Office of the Advocate General
High Court Buildings
Bangalore-560 001.                          ...RESPONDENT

(By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP)

       This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event
of his arrest in Cr.No.343/2017 of Girinagar P.S., Bangalore,
for the offence P/U/S 307 of IPC.
                             2



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

                         ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.343/2017.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that as per the complaint averments it is a case of accident. Further, though the police station is very near, there is a delay of 3 one day in lodging the complaint. The injured has been already discharged from the hospital. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition contending that there is a motive for the petitioner to dash his four wheeler vehicle to the two wheeler vehicle of the complainant and thereby, he made an attempt to commit her murder. He has submitted that earlier the complainant had lodged complaint dated 4.10.2017 as against the petitioner and it is the motive for him for making such preparation to cause the death of the complainant and thereby, he made an attempt to commit her murder. Hence, submitted that petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

6. The materials placed on record shows that the complainant had filed the complaint against the petitioner herein on 4.10.2017. It is her specific allegation that due to such complaint filed, petitioner was making preparation and as such, dashed his car against her vehicle and made an attempt to commit her murder. Learned Government Pleader has also submitted that complainant has suffered fracture to her legs.

7. The prosecution material shows that there is a prima facie material against the petitioner to show his involvement in committing the said offence. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5

Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE bkp

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court