Karnataka High Court
Chandraiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.48 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. CHANDRAIAH
S/O GURULINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O BEHIND NEW COURT,
DEVARAJ URS EXTENSION
DAVANAGERE-577 002
2. VEERESHI
S/O CHANDRAIAH
R/O BEHIND NEW COURT,
DEVARAJ URS EXTENSION
DAVANAGERE-577 002
3. RUDRESH
S/O CHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/O BEHIND NEW COURT,
DEVARAJ URS EXTENSION
DAVANAGERE-577 002
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B. BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
HADADI POLICE STATION,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
577 002 ... RESPONDENT
2
(BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, H.C.G.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS
ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN
CR.NO.179/2013 OF HADADI P.S., DAVANAGERE, WHICH
IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 506(B)
109 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, 3 & 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and to direct the respondent - police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.179/2013 registered in respondent police station for offences punishable under Sec. 302, 506(B) 109 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1, 3 and 4 and also Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent State.
3
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners during the course of his arguments submitted that even looking to the submission of the alleged eye witness Rambabu it is stated that accused Someshi assaulted the deceased with Macchu. Hence he made submission so far as these petitioners are concerned there is no allegations against these petitioners and hence he made submission that these petitioners may be enlarged with anticipatory bail. He also made submission that these petitioners along with accused No.2 Sudha filed criminal petition No. 154/2014 before this Court and this Hon'ble Court stayed the proceedings to be conducted by the respondent police and directed them not to proceed with the investigation so far as these petitioners are concerned by passing interim order of stay. The counsel for the petitioners produce the copy of the said order dated 10.01.2014.
4. As against this the Learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments 4 submitted that looking to the statement of the eye witnesses they have also stated the presence of these present petitioners at the spot where they instigated accused No.1 Someshi to finish the deceased and not to live him. So in the alleged offence under Section 109 of IPC along with 302 of PIC is also registered. Apart from that these petitioners earlier approached this Hon'ble Court by filing petition seeking anticipatory bail but this Court at that stage considering the merits of the case passed an order dated 26.12.2013 in Criminal Petition No.8145/2013 rejected the petition filed by these petitioners and granted anticipatory bail only to accused No.2 Sudha only on the ground she being a women. Now according to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners themselves investigation as against the present petitioners is not proceeded with the case and when such an order is passed in the Criminal Petition No. 8145/2013 for the offence alleged under Section 109 of IPC. Hence considering all these materials on record I am of the opinion that it is not a fit 5 case to grant the present petitioners with anticipatory bail.
Accordingly petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR