Vital Rag @ Umesha vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2013

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Vital Rag @ Umesha vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2013

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

                              1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                    BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JUNE, 2013

                          BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.3671 of 2013

BETWEEN:

Vital Rag @ Umesha,
Aged about 40 years,
Son of Erappa,
Resident of 5th Cross,
Vallabai Road,
Hassan District,
PIN: 573 201.                            ...PETITIONER

(By Shri. Rahul Rai .K , Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka,
through Hassan Town Police Station,
represented by its
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.                    ...RESPONDENT

(By Shri. K. Dilip Kumar, Government Pleader)

                           *****
                                2




       This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the
code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.161 of
2012 of Hassan Town Police Station, Hassan, which is
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and
506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

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

                          ORDER

The petitioner is accused of offences punishable initially under Sections 324 and 506 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for brevity). However, after filing the charge-sheet, the same has been altered as an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. It transpires that the petitioner has been enlarged on bail by the police after interrogation in the first instance. But, with the changed provision having been invoked, the petitioner apprehending arrest, had sought anticipatory bail which has been rejected by the court below.

2. Having regard to the fact that the injuries are shown to be simple in nature, it is inexplicable that Section 326 IPC has 3 been invoked. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case for relief. In the event of his arrest, 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.20,000/- with one solvent surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the police.

(ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the concerned police, as and when required and shall attend the court on all dates of hearing.

(iii) The petitioner shall not induce or threaten any prosecution witnesses.

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court below without prior permission.

Sd/-

JUDGE KS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court