Allowed

Manjunath S/O Maruti Barker v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2020CRL.P/100621/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by three accused persons charged with offences under IPC sections 324, 325, 341, 504 and 34 involving assault. The court imposed conditions including personal bond, sureties, periodical attendance, and restrictions on leaving the jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 released on bail upon executing personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two sureties for like sum.

Manjunath S/O Maruti Barker Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^{T H} DAY OF JULY, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100621/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANJUNATH S/O MARUTI BARKER AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: GIRANI CHAWL, KARWAR ROAD, HUBBALLI.

¶9

SHRIKANT S/O MARUTI BARKER AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: GIRANI CHAWL, KARWAR ROAD, HUBBALLI.

¶10

SHINU @ SRINIVAS S/O JAGADISH BALLARY AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: GIRANI CHAWL, 3^{R D} CROSS, KARWAR ROAD, HUBBALLI.

¶11

... PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI B S SANGATI, ADVOCATE.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HUBBALLI SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

¶15

... RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP.)

¶17

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ORDER DIRECTING THE SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST BY SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, IN CRIME NO.43/2020, REGISTERED ON 28.05.2020 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 324, 325, 341, 504 AND 34 OF IPC, ETC.,.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 under section 438 of Cr.P.C., for release on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.43/2020 of Sub-Urban Police Station, Hubballi, registered for the offences punishable under sections 324, 325, 341, 504, 34 of IPC.

¶22

The facts briefly stated in the petition are that, on the complaint filed by the injured victim, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that on 28.5.2020 evening at 4.30 p.m., when the complainant was going on his motorbike on Karwar road, the petitioner/accused

¶23

¶24

No.1 Manjunath picked up quarrel for the reason as to why the complainant told his brother about the gambling game played by the petitioner/accused No.1. Thereafter accused No.1 called his two other friends Shinu and Shrikant. Then all of them abused and assaulted the complainant with hands, sticks and rods. On account of the assault done by them, the injured victim has sustained fracture. In pursuance of the complaint filed by the injured victim, the police have registered the case and the police officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioners.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent State. Perused the prosecution papers available at this stage.

¶26

The main contention of the learned

¶27

counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application

¶28

¶29

only on the ground that the petitioner No.1/ accused No.1 is a rowdy sheeter without there being any records to prove the said contention. These petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case with the vindictive motive. In the event of arrest and detention, they will be put to great hardship.

¶30

Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that the injured victim has clearly stated in his complaint about the assault done by the petitioners. The presence of the petitioners is required for custodial interrogation. In the event of granting anticipatory bail, they would abscond and cause threat to the injured victim.

¶31

As could be seen from the impugned

¶32

order passed, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the letter of the Investigating Officer addressed to the public prosecutor disclose that the incriminating articles are not yet seized and

¶33

¶34

the accused No.1 is a rowdy sheeter. But no details are forthcoming that in how many criminal cases the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is involved. At this stage it is needless to make elaborate discussion or to give any specific finding as the same is not permissible while considering the bail application. Admittedly the offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The facts and circumstances narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioners goes to prove the apprehension of the petitioners regarding their arrest and detention.

¶35

The main objection of the prosecution is

¶36

that in the event of granting bail, the accused are likely to interfere with the investigation and cause threat to the complainant victim. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.

¶37

¶38

For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶41

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶42

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.43/2020 of Sub-Urban Police Station, Hubballi, on their executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees only) each

¶43

¶44

with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶45

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶46

The petitioner No.1/accused No.1 shall mark his attendance in the concerned police station on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.

¶47

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission, till the disposal of the case.

¶48

If the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 violate any of the conditions, the bail order automatically stands cancelled.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Mrk/-

Manjunath S/O Maruti Barker v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath S/O Maruti Barker 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

Sri.S.Ram Das Naik S/O Late Somala Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Rajendra Banduji Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Mahesh S/O. Veerappa Lakkannavar, Vs Gangawwa @ Mala W/O. Mahesh Lakkannavar

Sri.Manjunath S/O Ningappa Yeddalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Maltesh S/O. Chikkappa Nellibidu Vs Sunita W/O. Parameshappa Kadappanavar

Khajameer S/O Basir Saab Vs the State of Karnataka