Mallikarjuna A vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mallikarjuna A vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2022

Bench: H.P. Sandesh

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1082/2022

BETWEEN:

MALLIKARJUNA A,
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING IN JAIN MANEPECTOR,
R/O HIREMEGALAGERE VILLAGE,
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT 583123.                   ...PETITIONER

            (BY SRI SIDDESWARA N.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY JAGALUR POLICE,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.                              ...RESPONDENT

                (BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.246/2021 OF JAGALUR P.S., DAVANAGERE DISTRICT FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307 OF IPC, I ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE.

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  2



                            ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.246/2021 of Jagalur Police Station, Davanagere District, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 07.12.2021 at about 11.00 a.m., when the complainant was discharging his duty in the Court premises, he heard the sound and immediately went and found two persons were assaulting each other and when he tried to pacify the galata, the assailants were taken to custody. As a result, the complainant sustained injury in the said incident.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's sister also sustained injury and injuries sustained by the complainant is simple in nature and not grievous and he only took treatment as an inpatient for 2 days and on the next day, the injured was discharged. 3

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the complainant has sustained injury and not disputes the nature of injuries as simple in nature.

6. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also having considered the nature of injuries and the allegations made in the complaint and the circumstances under which the incident was taken place and the injured is out of danger and the injured was in the hospital for a period of four days in two different hospitals and hence it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.

7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.246/2021 of Jagalur Police Station, Davanagere District, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE MD

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court