Karnataka High Court
Mahantesh S/O Parasappa @ Parashuram ... vs State Of Karnataka on 17 August, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH.
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101701 OF 2017.
BETWEEN:
MAHANTESH BELADADI
S/O PARASAPPA @ PARASHURAM BELADADI
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: GANGURPET, GADAG,
GADAG DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.R.M.JAVED, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GADAG TOWN P.S.
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K. UPPAR-HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED
NO. 4 ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CONNECTION
WITH GADAG TOWN P.S. CRIME NO. 192 OF 2017 FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341, 307,
504, 506, 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(VA)
OF THE SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT
2015.
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent Police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Section 341, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered in respondent/Police Station Crime No.192/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.4 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
3. Counsel for the petitioner made the submission that, even though the alleged offence is under 307 of the :3: IPC, but the injured has been already discharged from the hospital and the injuries mentioned as simple in nature. Hence, he submitted by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be considered for admitting him to anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra the learned HCGP made the submission that there is one more case Crime No.29/2017, it is also for the offence under 307 of the IPC and he made the submission that the present petitioner name is entered the rowdy sheeters register. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is in the habit of involving such offences and if granted with anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood that again he will involve in committing such offences and hence he submitted to reject the petition.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the other materials produced like order of the learned Session Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioner. Looking to the grounds urged in the bail petition though it is contended :4: by the petitioner that he is innocent and not involved in committing the said offence. But on the side of the prosecution, it is their contention that apart from this case he also involved in committing the alleged offences in Crime No.29/2017, which are also of a similar nature and in addition to that, it is the contention of the prosecution that the name of the present petitioner has been entered in the rowdy sheeter. For this the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the name of the petitioner has been falsely entered in the rowdy sheeter, and that the Court has to consider prima facie material. If it is the contention that name of the petitioner has been falsely entered in the rowdy sheeter register, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law. Hence, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHR/-