Karnataka High Court
Santhosh @ Gulle vs State Of Karnataka on 4 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 1254
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3423/2019
BETWEEN:
1. Santhosh N @ Gulle,
S/o Narayana Swamy,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.77, Ist Main, 2nd Cross,
Near AnjaneyeSwamy Temple,
Nyanappanahalli,
B.G.Road,
Bengaluru City-560 068.
2. Prempetor P @ Masana,
Aged about 23 years,
S/o late Kanikya Swamy,
R/at Bandepalya,
Janapriya Layout,
3rd Cross, Nayanappanahalli,
B.G.Road,
Bengaluru-560 068.
3. Manikanta. V @ Kati,
Aged about 22 years,
S/o Veerabhadrappa,
R/at No.42/18, 4th Main,
Ist Cross, Krishna Bhadavane,
B.G.Road,
Bengaluru-560 068.
... Petitioners
(By Sri.Rajashekara R.V., Advocate)
2
AND:
State of Karnataka,
by its Station House Officer
by Hulimavu Police
Bengaluru-560 068.
Represented by
State public prosecutor,
High Court building,
Bengaluru-560 001.
... Respondent
(By Sri. S. Rachaiah, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the
Code of the Criminal Procedure, praying to enlarge the
petitioners on bail in Cr.No.321/2018 (C.C.No.6705/2019)
registered by Hulimavu Police Station, Bengaluru for the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 120(B) read with
Section 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners-accused are seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with their detention pursuant to proceedings in Crime No.321/2018 (C.C.No.6705/2019) for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC.
3
2. Case of the prosecution is that on 16.12.2018 at about 11.30 p.m., the complaint was filed. It is stated that when the complainant was taking on his mobile phone, Accused Nos.1 to 4 approached the complainant and questioned the complainant as to why he is standing there. It is stated that subsequently after spending some time together, the complainant left the place and went to his house. It is further stated that at about 11.45 p.m. Latha wife of Raghu called the complainant and informed that his Uncle has suffered injuries and had been assaulted by a beer bottle. The complainant reached the place of incident, Accused Nos.1 to 4 had run away after allegedly committing the assault on Raghu. It is stated that subsequently the injured Raghu has been discharged after medical treatment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the role of the accused in commission of the crime 4 is a matter to be proved during the trial. It is further stated that though the charge sheet makes out a case as regards Accused No.4 regarding grievous injuries, other injuries are simple in nature and imputation as regards Accused No.2 is only that he was the instigator.
4. Learned HCGP opposes grant of bail and contends that Accused No.1 has criminal antecedents and he is involved in other cases. It is to be noted that the charge sheet makes out a case primarily against Accused No.4 as regards inflicting of the grievous injuries, but other injuries are simple in nature. As regards inflicting of injury by Accused No.4, it is a matter to be proved during the trial. There are no criminal antecedents insofar as Accused No.4 is concerned.
5. It is noticed that the petitioners are in custody since 18.12.2018.
5
6. As regards Accused No.1 is concerned, though admittedly he is involved in other cases, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that Accused No.1 has been enlarged on bail in terms of the judgment passed in C.C.No.11075/2014 wherein Accused No.1 has been acquitted while in Crime No.558/2013. Accused No.1 has not been arraigned as an accused and as regards Crime No.187/2016, the alleged offense is relating to a minor provocation. It is noticed that the main imputation is only as regards Accused No.4. Taking note of the nature of imputation made in the charge sheet, Accused No.1 is entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, stringent conditions would be imposed to ensure that he does not misuse the liberty granted by this Court. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioners under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the 6 petitioners are enlarged on bail in Crime No.321/2018 (C.C.No.6705/2019) for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) each, with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioners shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the petitioners to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(v) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioners, shall result in cancellation of bail.
(vi) The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a month till the conclusion of trial.7
(vii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities of like nature.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/*