Karnataka High Court
Sri.Ramesh vs State By Vidyaranyapuram on 13 June, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO 2678 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAMESH,
S/O JAVARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
2. SRI. VENKATESH @ VENKU
S/O GAVISIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
3. SRI. ESHWAR @ EASA,
S/O GAVISIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF NO.1968,
11TH CROSS, ASHOKPURAM,
MYSORE-570008
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SUDHARSHAN L, ADVOCATE.,)
AND:
STATE BY VIDYARANYAPURAM
POLICE, MYSORE
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT
BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.J. ESHWARAPPA, HCGP.)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.64/2014 OF
VIDYARANYAPURAM P.S., MYSORE CITY, WHICH IS
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 327, 323, 341, 506 R/W
34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioners / accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and to direct the respondent - police to release the petitioners on bail in Crime No.64/2014 registered in respondent police station in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 327,323,341, 506 R/W 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and also heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3
3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, F.I.R , complaint and other material produced along with the petition. Looking into the allegations made in the complaint the case of the prosecution in brief is that complainant filed the written complaint alleging that complainant had come to attend the marriage of his friend's sister on 6.04.2014 at 12.00 noon at Om Sri. Kalyana Mantapa. The petitioners being close friends came near the complainant and the first petitioner asked the complainant to get him liquor. The complainant is said to have denied for the reason that he was not having sufficient money to offer for the liquor. The first petitioner is said to have abused the complainant stating that he is wearing golden chain and doing cable business and is capable of offering liquor and there was exchange of words. Then the petitioners took the knife and threatened the complainant to hand over the chain. When complainant refused for the same then the petitioners assaulted the complainant on the left hand and snatched the golden chain. It is also 4 alleged that petitioner No. 2 with his head dashed on the face of the complainant and caused injuries to his lips and petitioner No. 3 took away Rs. 1,000/- from the pocket of the complainant. On the basis of the said complaint case has been registered for the alleged offences. The records goes to show that later the police moved the memo stating that offences alleged are not punishable under Section 327 but it is wrongly mentioned and it is the offences punishable under Section 397 of the IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced the injury certificate of the complainant - Suresh. The injury mentioned according to the doctor is simple in nature. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that even the alleged offences punishable under sections 397 will not be attracted as there is no grievous injury caused. The petitioners contended in their petition that they have been falsely implicated in the case and they are innocent and not at all involved in the alleged offences and they are ready to abide by any reasonable 5 conditions to be imposed by this court. Looking into the injuries and the certificate issued by the petitioner in this case and considering the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner can be admitted to anticipatory bail. Accordingly, petition is allowed , Respondent-State are directed to release the petitioner -accused on bail in Crime No.64/2014 registered in respondent police station in the event of arrest of the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 327,323,341, 506 R/W 34 of IPC, subject to following conditions.
1. Each petitioner to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
2. Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
3. The petitioners shall give attendance before the respondent - police station in 6 every fortnight preferably on Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon till completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet.
4. He shall appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond and also the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE RA