Allowed

Mr Prakash Shetty v. the State-through the

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2013CRL.P/2887/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a section 438 bail petition. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving grievous hurt and culpable homicide (IPC 302). He argued the allegations were vague and other accused were on bail. The court granted bail subject to conditions, primarily a self-bond and surety.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail subject to execution of a self-bond and surety of Rs. 20,000 and conditions regarding witness tampering and court attendance.

Mr Prakash Shetty Vs the State-through the — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2013

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶5

Criminal Petition No.2887 of 2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mr.Prakash Shetty S/o. Raghuram Shetty Aged 40 years Residing at Domba Shetty Compound Mannagudda, Barke Mangalore-3.

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri. P.P.Hegde, Advocate) And:

¶10

The State Through the Police Sub-Inspector, Bajpe Police Station Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bangalore-560001.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

(By Sri. Satish R. Girji, Government Pleader)

¶13

This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No. 30/2013 of Bajpe Police Station, D.K. (Old Crime No. 29/2013), for the offences punishable

¶14

¶15

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶16

This criminal petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is said to be accused No.2 in a pending case. The petitioner along with others are accused of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342 and 307 read with Section 149, and subsequently, is also accused of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It transpires that the complainant was employed as a lorry driver under one Lakshmisha, accused No.1, and the said lorry had met with an accident. When accused No.1 was informed of the accident, it is then he realized that the driver had taken away the lorry without informing. He had rushed to the accident spot along with his friends and found that the lorry had dashed against a car and the car owner was demanding damages and therefore accused No.1 was constrained to settle with the car owner by paying him damages. Then, since accused No.1 was furious at the driver for having taken away the lorry without his permission, suspected that he had attempted to steal the lorry.

¶19

¶20

It is alleged that accused No.1 along with other accused had beaten up both the complainant and his companion very badly and had dumped them in a vehicle, locked the same and had left. It is later that the complainant and his friend were rescued and admitted to hospital with severe injuries. It transpires that the companion of the complainant is said to have died as a result of the same. It is in that background that the several accused have been taken into custody. The present petitioner is before the court seeking anticipatory bail on the ground that several other accused have been granted bail in the usual course and the allegation against the present petitioner is that he brought accused No.1 and his companions from Murudeshwar to the accident spot in a vehicle. As far as the incident in causing injuries to the deceased or the complainant, there are no eye witnesses, except the injured complainant. The overt act alleged against the present petitioner is vague. Therefore the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in the light of the fact that other accused have been granted regular bail.

¶21

¶22

In the above circumstances of the case, in the event

¶23

that the petitioner should be arrested, shall be enlarged on bail

¶24

subject to the following conditions:-

¶25

(i) That the petitioner shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- with a solvent surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the police;

¶26

(ii) That the petitioner shall not seek to influence the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

¶27

(iii) That the petitioner shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing; and

¶28

(iv) That the petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Authority.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

Rd/-

Mr Prakash Shetty v. the State-through the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Prakash Shetty v. the State-through the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Aleemuddin Shaikh Vs Smt Shazia Aleemuddin Shaikh

Mr.Shaik Zaheer Vs Mr.Sanaulla

Akram Vs State of Karnataka

K M Krishna Vs G Gayathri Devi

Divakara Vs the State by Town Police

Sri. Areyada Nanjappa @ Nanda Vs State of Karnataka