Karnataka High Court
Sumanth Kumar. S. P. vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2019
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2323/2019
BETWEEN:
Sumanth Kumar S.P.,
S/o Shivakumar Swamy,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at No.111, D.S.Max,
Thirumenahalli,
Bengaluru-560 064. ... Petitioner
(By Sri H. Mohan Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
By K.G.Halli Police Station,
Bengaluru City,
By State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru-560 001. ... Respondent
(By Sri K. P. Yoganna, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Code of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in Cr.No.59/2019 of Kadugondana
Halli P.S., Bengaluru City for the offence punishable
under Sections 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC
and Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act.
2
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail with respect to his detention in connection with the proceedings in Crime No.59/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act, 1959.
2. It is stated that a complaint was filed by one Mr.Prasad.G, which was initially registered in Crime No.59/2019 on 16/02/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is stated that on the basis of the further statement of the complainant, the offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act, 1959 have been included. The case made out by the prosecution is that on 15/02/2019 at about 10:30 p.m., when he was having food in Kaveri Hotel, he noticed 3 that delivery boys of Zomato were consuming liquor, the victim objected to such behavior in a public road. Then at about 11:30 p.m., complainant had gone to meet the owner of Kitchen King Hotel, and while talking with his friend in front of the Hotel, the complainant alleges that an employee of Zomato had come over there with his friends and picked up a quarrel and has assaulted him with machete, causing grievous injuries. On lodging of the complaint, FIR came to be registered and subsequently charge sheet has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that accused No.2 has been enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the order dated 14.06.2019 in Crl.P.No.1866/2019, while accused No.3 has been enlarged on bail as per the order dated 13.03.2019 in Crl.Misc.No.25239/2019. It is further contended that the proof of the offence is a matter for trial and the petitioner is willing to be subjected to appropriate conditions to ensure 4 co-operation with the trial and that he would not tamper with the witnesses or evidence.
4. Taking note of the fact that the proceedings relating to bail cannot be treated to be punitive and that the commission of offence is a matter to be proved during the trial and also noticing that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, the case is made out for enlarging the petitioner on bail. It is noticed that investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed and that accused No.3 has been enlarged on regular bail, while accused No.2 has been enlarged on anticipatory bail. It is noticed that the petitioner is in custody since 18.02.2019. Accordingly, by imposing conditions petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.59/2019 with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 5 307, 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act, 1959, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall not indulge in any criminal activities of like nature henceforth.
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the
petitioner to inform the same to the
concerned SHO.
(v) Any violation of the aforementioned
conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail.6
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE RB