Karnataka High Court
Vinay vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2672/2014
BETWEEN:
1. VINAY,
S/O. D.K.NINGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
2. NAVEEN,
S/O. D.K.NINGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
3. RANJITH,
S/O. LATE MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
DANTARAMAKKI VILLAGE,
JYOTHINAGARA POST,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT- 573 205. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA.K.A. ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF
CHIKMAGALUR RURAL P.S.,
CHIKMAGALUR- 573 205. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
2
THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.129/2014 OF
CHICKMAGALUR RURAL P.S. CHICKMAGALUR, WHICH IS
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 341, 504, 307, 323 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioners/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners-accused on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Section 341, 504, 307, 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC, registered in Crime No.129/2014.
2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments submits that, even according to the case of the prosecution, there was long standing enimity between the petitioners and the 3 injured and a criminal case was also registered in respect of an earlier incident. He also submits that, petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and they are not involved in the commission of the offences and because of the previous enimity, a false complaint has been filed against the present petitioners. He also made submission that, even if the case of the prosecution is taken to be true for the sake of the arguments, the injuries sustained by the injured was simple in nature, as per the wound certificate issued by the doctor who gave the treatment to the injured. He also made submission that, the injured has been already discharged from the hospital. He also submits that, by imposing any stringent conditions, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
4. As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that the injured himself is a better witness in this case and he has clearly stated in his statement that the petitioners have assaulted him and caused the 4 injuries. He also made submission that from the date of the incident, the petitioners are absconding and not available for interrogation. Hence, he submits that, the petitioners are not entitled to be granted with the relief of anticipatory bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, Complaint and order passed by the Lower Court on the bail application and other materials placed on record. Looking to the materials on record, it goes to show that, there was previous enimity between the petitioners and the injured since 12 years. Looking to the wound certificate issued by the doctor, there are two injuries said to have been sustained by the injured. But it is mentioned by the doctor that both injuries are simple in nature. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also produced the discharge summary. The injured said to have been admitted in hospital for treatment on 16.03.2014 and said to have been discharged on 18.03.2014. Therefore, this goes to show that the life of the injured is out of danger. The alleged offences are 5 also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
6. In the bail petition, it is contended by the petitioners that, they are innocent and they have not at all committed the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in the case and they are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by the Court. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioners produced the marriage wedding card of petitioner No.2-Naveen Kumar which is scheduled to be on 19.06.2014. Therefore, looking to the materials on record and since the offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent-police is directed to enlarge the petitioners/accused on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Section 341, 6 504, 307, 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station in Crime No.129/2014 subject to the following conditions:
i) Each of the petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `50,000/-
and furnish a solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii) Petitioners shall make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, whenever called for.
iv) Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE KSR