Karnataka High Court
Sri Surya Teja B R vs State By Anekal Police Station on 24 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 1416
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRL.P NO.2356 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI SURYA TEJA B R
S/O BALARAJ
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
R/AT NO 626 10TH CROSS
ITL LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI
BENGALURU - 560072
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI:H P LEELADHAR, ADV)
AND:
STATE BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU - 560001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI:K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.77/2017 (C.C.NO.1681/2017)(S.C.NO.5010/2018) OF
ANEKAL POLICE STATION, BANGALORE RURUAL DISTRICT
2
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 307,
504, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the petitioner's Counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. Accused No.1 has sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The respondent-police registered a case in Cr.No.77/2017 against the petitioner and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC with regard to the attempt made on the life of complainant, namely, Naveen on 08.05.2017. The specific allegation is that when the complainant was returning to his house after supplying flowers, the petitioner and other accused stopped him and inflicted injuries with a button knife.
3. The charge sheet materials contain statements of one Pavan, Chandru and Mohan. Their statements disclose that the injured himself told them about the infliction of injuries to him by the petitioners and they took the complainant to the hospital for treatment. But if the wound 3 certificate is perused, what is seen is that the complainant himself went to the hospital. The name of the persons who took him to the hospital are not written. Thus, there are discrepancies in the materials collected by the investigating officer. Moreover, with regard to the incident that took place on 08.05.2017, the complaint came to be registered on 10.05.2017. The delay is not explained. Having regard to all these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the bail can be granted. Learned Sessions Judge has observed that because the petitioner is involved in other cases, he is an habitual offender. It is true that bail can be rejected, if the accused is found to be an habitual offender. But before applying the principle, what is required to be examined is whether in given case, there are prima facie materials to hold the involvement of accused in the crime. If there are no prima facie materials, simply on the ground that the petitioner is an habitual offender, bail cannot be rejected. The charge sheet is filed. Therefore, the following:
ORDER Petition is allowed.
Petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.77/2017 registered by 4 respondent-police on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner is also subjected to the following conditions:
(i) He shall regularly appear before the Court during trial;
(ii) He shall not threaten the witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-