Allowed

Ramesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2014CRL.P/7557/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to two petitioners in Crime No. 790/2014 involving assault and attempted murder. The Court ruled that since petitioners' names were absent from the complaint and only suspicion existed, it was a fit case for bail. The petitioners were directed to release on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; release on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties for the likesum.

Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

Crl.P. 7557/14

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014

¶5

BEFORE:

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7557 OF 2014

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Ramesh, Aged about 28 years, S/o. Muniyappa,

¶10

Muniyappa, Aged about 60 years, S/o. late Ramaiah, Both are r/at: Andrahalli, Near Peenya 2^nd Stage, Opp. Ganesh Temple, Ramaiah Badavane, Vishwaneedam Post, Bangalore - 560 091. ... PETITIONER/S [By Sri. Prabhugouda B. Tumbigi, Adv.]

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka By Thavarekere Police, Thavarekere, Ramanagar District - 562 159. ... RESPONDENT/S [By Sri. B. Visweswaraiah, HCGP.]

¶13

Crl.P. 7557/14

¶14

¶15

This Crl.P. is filed u/Section 438 Cr.P.C praying to pass an order of anticipatory bail and direct the respondent police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.790/2014, registered by the respondent police for the offences U/Ss.324, 307 and 120(B) of IPC., pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bangalore.

¶16

This Crl.P. coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioners have approached this Court

¶19

for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest in Crime No.790/2014 of Tavarekere Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 307 and 120-B IPC.

¶20

The facts reveal that some unknown

¶21

persons caused the assault by use of deadly weapons on the injured-Krishnamurthy on 08.11.2014 at 2.30 p.m. In the circumstances, a complaint

¶22

was filed by the son of the injured to the Police on the aforesaid facts, which came to be

¶23

Crl.P. 7557/14

¶24

¶25

registered for the aforesaid offences and the

¶26

petitioners are apprehending arrest.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners names does not appear in the complaint and even the injured has not referred their names in the complaint and what he has stated is that only he suspects conspiracy of the petitioners in the said crime. Though the offence is under Sections 307, 324 and 120-B IPC., at this stage, except the suspicion entertained by the injured, there appear to be no material against the petitioners for the said offence. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the anticipatory bail could be granted.

¶29

In the result the petition is allowed. In

¶30

the event of the arrest of the petitioners for the offence under Sections 307, 324 r/w. 120-B IPC.,

¶31

Crl.P. 7557/14

¶32

¶33

registered in Crime No.790/2014 of Tavarekere Police Station, they are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000-00 each with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with the further following conditions:

¶34

i) Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Police Station within 10 [ten] days.

¶35

ii) They shall mark their attendance in the Police Station on every Sunday in between 10.00 to 11.00 a.m. until further orders.

¶36

iii) They shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person/s acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶37

Crl.P. 7557/14

¶38

¶39

iv) They shall attend the Court as and when directed.

¶40

v) They shall not involve in any such criminal activities.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE.

¶42

Ksm*

Ramesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. the State of Karnataka

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

Mrs Shraddha Vs State by Mangalore South Police Station

Sri Nayaz @ Nayaz Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Bande Manja @ H S Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka

K M Shivalingaiah Vs State by Sub-Inspector of Police

Smt Sarojabai Vs State of Karnataka

Kottangada B Kariappa Vs the State of Karnataka by