Sri Muniraju vs State Of Karnataka on 5 August, 2015

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Muniraju vs State Of Karnataka on 5 August, 2015

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy

                         1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015

                     BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

             CRL.P. NO.4421 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

SRI. MUNIRAJU,
SON OF ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ESTUR VILLAGE,
SULIBELE HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 129.
                                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M., ADV.)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY SULIBELE POLICE,
HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 129.
                                     ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. K. NAGESWARAPPA, HCGP)

                        ***

      CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETR. ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR. NO.53/2015
OF SULIBELE P.S., BENGALURU DIST., WHICH IS
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 AND 504
OF IPC.

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



                       ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader appearing for the respondent - State.

2. Petitioner is sole accused in Crime No.53/2015 on the file of the respondent - Sulibele Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 307 of IPC. Apprehending his arrest at the hands of the respondent Police he has filed anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the wound certificate and submits that as per the opinion of the doctor, injury Nos.1 and 2 are simple in nature. Since no serious allegations are made against the petitioner and the offence is punishable under 3 Section 504 which is triable by the Magistrate and the nature of injuries suffered by the victim, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.

5. The learned Government Pleader vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner - accused on the ground that he was absconded at the time investigation. Therefore, bail may not be granted and requests the court to dismiss the bail petition.

6. I have gone through the records as well as the wound certificate. The petitioner - accused is a permanent resident of Hosakote Taluk having roots in the community. Further, he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. The apprehension of the learned Government 4 Pleader could be met with by imposing suitable conditions. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

1) Bail application is allowed. Petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.53/2015 of the respondent Police on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand Only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the I.O.

2) He shall surrender before I.O. within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

3) He shall co-operate with the further investigation and shall attend police station whenever his presence is required by the I.O. without fail.

4) He shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses and shall not try to lure them in any manner.

5) He shall not involve himself in any such kind of activities.

6) He shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police once in a month on every second Sunday between 9 AM to 5 PM till the disposal of the case registered against him.

7) It is made clear that if he do not comply with any one of the conditions imposed on him, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE snc

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court