Allowed

Hanumanthappa v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2016CRL.P/3501/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This anticipatory bail petition was allowed. The High Court granted bail subject to conditions, including executing a self-bond with a surety, cooperating with investigation, not leaving jurisdiction, and not tampering with prosecution evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be enlarged on bail subject to execution of self-bond of Rs.40,000 with surety, cooperation with investigation, and remaining within jurisdiction.

Hanumanthappa Vs the State of Karnataka by — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3501 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Hanmanthappa S/o Basappa Kamatagi @ Desai, Aged about: 75 years, Occupation: Agricultural, Residents of Chikk Asangi, Taluk: B. Bagewadi, District: Vijaypur – 586 203.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(Shri Ravindra B. Deshpande Advocate)

¶11

AND: The State of Karnataka by Kolhar Police Station, Bijapur District – 586 210. (Now Vijaypur District) (Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Bengaluru – 560 001.)

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

(Shri Sheshadri Jaishankar M, Government Pleader )

¶14

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.3/2016 of Kolhar P.S., Bijapura for the offence punishable under Section 341, 109, 120(B), 307, 504, 506(2), 379, 454, 380 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code.

¶16

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶19

Government Pleader.

¶20

The present petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.6 on the basis of a complaint in a criminal case in Crime No.3/2016 before the court below for offences punishable under Sections 341, 109, 307, 504, 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

¶21

1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for brevity).

¶22

It is claimed by the complainant that Accused No.1 had assaulted him at the instance and at the instigation of the present petitioner and other accused. It transpires that in this background, Accused No.3 has been enlarged on bail, notwithstanding the allegations.

¶23

¶24

By the same token of reasoning, the present petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the petition is allowed and in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶25

i) The petitioner shall execute a self-bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- with a surety for a likesum;

¶26

ii) The petitioner shall undertake to co-operate with the investigating authorities as and when called upon, to assist in the investigation;

¶27

iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below without the leave of the Court; and

¶28

iv) The petitioner shall not, in any manner, seek to tamper

¶29

with the prosecution evidence.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Hanumanthappa v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumanthappa v. the State of Karnataka by

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 Mahadevi Vs the State of Karnataka

Hucchappa S/O Kalappa Rajan Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhimanna S/O Mahadevappa Meti Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Bhuvaneshwari Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Bapugowda @ Babu Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Haji S/O Khasim Karemungi Vs the State through