Karnataka High Court
Mr Bharath Shetty (Barath Shetty) vs State Of Karnataka on 28 July, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6092 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI BHARATH SHETTY (BARATH SHETTY)
SON OF KARUNAKARSHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.88, 4TH CROSS,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 064
(THE PETITIONER IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. TOMY SEBASTIAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI/ SMT. RENY SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY
R/BY SPP
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.K.KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ORDER THE RELEASE OF THE
2
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.76/2022 OF HIGH
GROUNDS POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE
OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 307, 341, 324, 323, 354,
355, 427, 506, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 25 OF
ARMS ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT,
NRUPTHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Cr.No.76/2022 of High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 341, 354, 355, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
2. Heard the arguments of learned Senior counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.05.2022, there was a function organised by the 3 Karnataka State Raitha Sangha at Gandhi Bhavan. At that time, one Rakesh Tikait was invited as chief guest. When he was speaking in Hindi language, petitioner and other accused persons objected and demanded to speak him in Kannada language and one Kavitha who was addressing the gathering was translating in Telugu language. At that time petitioner and other accused persons stated to have been raised their voices and dragged the said Kavitha and assaulted the complainant, damaged the microphone, etc. After receiving the complaint, the police have registered a case and arrested the petitioner. Subsequently, the police have submitted a requisition to include Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The bail petition filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court came to be rejected and hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The learned Senior counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Except the allegations that he has demanded to speak in Kannada language, there is no offences committed by the 4 petitioner. Moreover, accused No.4 is already granted bail and the petitioner is in custody for more than two months.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objecting for grant of bail contended that the petitioner and accused persons have attended the said function/meeting with an intention for group dispute/quarrel against the complainant and others. The investigation is not yet completed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. On perusal of the case of the prosecution, the petitioner and other accused persons stated to be demanded the speaker to speak in Kannada language, who even do not know Kannada language and when one Kavitha who was addressing the gathering tried to translate the in Telugu language, petitioner and other accused persons stated to have been agitated and assaulted the complainant and other persons, damaged 5 the microphone, etc. Of course police have registered case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 354, 355, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, but after 5 days they have invoked Section 307 of IPC. The petitioner is in custody. Of course, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that petitioner is involved in 3 other cases, but no documentary evidence is placed to show that he is involved in such cases and he is habitual offender.
7. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by imposing certain conditions, if the bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case. Hence, I pass the following ORDER Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner-accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.76/2022 registered by High 6 Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 341, 354, 355, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner-accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal Court;
(ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;
(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses directly/
indirectly;
(iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction
without prior permission of the trial Court;
(v) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in 15 days on every 2nd and 16th of the Calendar month between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m., for a period of three months till filing of the charge-sheet whichever is earlier.7
If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order.
Sd/-
JUDGE RR