Anilkumar vs The State Of Karnataka, on 22 August, 2016

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Anilkumar vs The State Of Karnataka, on 22 August, 2016

Bench: Aravind Kumar

                         :1:


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 22 n d DAY OF AUGUST 2016

                       BEFORE

THE HON 'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

       CRIMINAL PETITION No.100848 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

1.     ANILKUMAR S/O REVANEPPA SHASTRI,
       AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
       R/O: MADHAVARAYANAPUR,
       TQ: RANEBENNUR.

2.  TIPPANNA S/O SANNAHANUMANTHAPPA PUJAR,
    AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
    R/O: MADHAVARAYANAPUR,
    TQ: RANEBENNUR.
                                     ... PETITIONERS
(By Ms.NANDINI B.SOMAPUR FOR Sri.BV SOMAPUR ADV.)
AND:
     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     THROUGH RANEBENNUR RURAL POLICE
     REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
                                    ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 438 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO THE PETITIONER PLEASE BE
RELEASED     ON    ANTICIPATORY    BAIL    AND   THE
RANEBENNUR RURAL POLICE PLEASE BE DIRECTED TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
THEIR ARREST IN RANEBENNUR RURAL P.S.CRIME
NO.160/2016 FOR THE O/P/U/SEC. 504, 506, 143, 147,
148, 149, 323, 326 AND 354 R/W. SEC. 149 OF IPC.
                             :2:


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         O R D E R

Petitioners have been arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.160 of 2016 registered by Ranebennur Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 147, 143, 149, 148, 326, 323 and 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. One Sri.Thirupati lodged a complaint on 27 t h May 2016 alleging that his son Sri.Shivu who was playing with Sri.Manju S/o. Sri.Maruti Sannahanumantappa Pujar and two other children had quarreled with each other and as such, said Sri.Maruti had approached the complainant and informed him that complainant's son Sri.Shivu should behave himself properly as otherwise, he would be murdered. It is stated in the complaint that complainant advised Sri.Maruti not to get disturbed and speak in that manner, on account of the dispute between the youngsters. He has :3: further alleged that on the next day, i.e., on 26 t h May 2016 at about 9.00 a.m., when he was proceeding along with his son to leave him to school, at that time, said Sri.Maruti and other accused persons, carrying deadly weapons with them, abused the complainant and assaulted him resulting in bleeding injuries being sustained and accused persons have also threatened to take away his life. Hence, complaint came to be lodged, based on which investigation was taken up and apprehending their arrest, accused Nos.2 and 3 are before this Court, after they have failed in their attempt before the learned I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Haveri, in Criminal Misc. No.413 of 2016.

3. I have heard Miss.Nandini B.Somapur, learned counsel on behalf of Sri.B.V.Somapur for petitioners and Sri.Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent - State. Perused the records. :4:

4. It is the contention of Smt.Nandini B.Somapur, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, that no such incident has taken place as alleged in the complaint and on account of the ill-will against petitioners, a false police compliant has been lodged. Hence, she prays for anticipatory bail being granted to petitioners.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent - State would oppose the prayer and contends that petitioners along with other accused persons had formed unlawful assembly and they were carrying deadly weapons and had assaulted the complainant resulting in bleeding injuries being sustained by complainant which were grievous in nature.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it would disclose that the injuries sustained by complainant are simple in nature and taking into consideration that :5: petitioners are having both moveable and immoveable properties situated at Ranebennur and also the fact that other accused persons, against whom similar allegations had been made, have already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned District Judge, this Court is of the considered view that petitioners are also entitled for similar relief.

7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R Criminal Petition is hereby allowed. Petitioners are granted anticipatory bail and in the event of their arrest in Crime No.160 of 2016 registered by Ranebennur Rural Police Station, they are ordered to be released on executing a personal bond for `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand Only) each with one independent solvent surety each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court and subject to following conditions:

:6:

i. Petitioners shall surrender before the jurisdictional court within fifteen days from today;


ii.    Petitioners    shall     appear      before       the

       investigating    officer       whenever        called

       upon     and      co-operate         with         the

       investigating          officer           in       the

       investigation;

iii.   Petitioners      shall          appear         before

Ranebennur Rural Police Station once in fifteen days i.e., on 15 t h and 30 t h of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. to mark their attendance till filing of charge-sheet;

iv. Petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the dates of hearing without fail, unless there are exceptional circumstances;

v. Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without express permission.

:7:

In the event, any of above conditions not being complied by the petitioners, prosecution would be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE RK/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court