Allowed

Shri.Maheshkumar S/O Achayya Kastala v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2021CRL.P/100435/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka granted bail to accused No.1 charged with attempting murder involving an axe assault. The court held that despite serious allegations and pending civil dispute, custodial interrogation was not required and conditions could mitigate flight risk.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to executing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties and Conditions not to commit similar offenses, threaten/w tamper witnesses or abscond.

Shri.Maheshkumar S/O Achayya Kastala Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100435/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI MAHESHKUMAR S/O. ACHAYYA KASTALA, AGE-28 YEARS, OCC-PAINTING WORK, R/AT. JANATA COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580 023.

¶8

…….. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI:GOURISHANKAR H.MOT, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, KESHWAPUR POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD-580 011.

¶12

…… RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI: RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109 AND 307

¶15

¶16

READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AS ATTACHED IN KESHWAPUR POLICE STATION CRIME NO.12/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED 2ND JMFC, AT-HUBBALLI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. .

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.12/2021 registered by Keshwapur Police Station on the basis of first information lodged by the informant-Stephen George Karadi against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 109 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for the sake of brevity).

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that, the informant lodged the first information on 23.01.2021 against accused Nos.1 to 3 stating that on the same day, at about 7.00 p.m., accused No.1 had came to his shop and suddenly questioned the informant that he is interfering in the affairs of the Church and old aged home ; and proclaiming that the informant will be done to death, swang the axe which he had brought with an intention to cause death of the informant. The informant

¶21

¶22

escaped and ran out of the shop. Immediately, accused No.1 caught hold his shirt, as a result of which, the informant fell down. Accused No.1 tried to assault him with axe on his neck. In the meantime, others came to the spot and snatched the axe from the hands of the accused. Thereafter, accused ran away towards Gadag road. The informant stated that since 3 years, he is the Secretary of Catholic Association and they had cancelled the lease of the land granted in favour of Society of St. Vincent de Paul old aged home. A civil suit with regard to the old aged home is also pending for consideration. Raju Joseph-accused No.2 and Edwin Joseph-accused No.3 were having ill-will against the informant. Therefore, the informant requested the police to register the case against accused Nos.1 to 3, who attacked him with an intention to cause his death. Accordingly, the police registered the case and took up investigation.

¶23

Heard Sri Gourishankar H. Mot, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh B. Chigari, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶24

¶25

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶26

the petitioner is arrayed as accused Nos.1. He is innocent and law abiding person. He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. There is a civil dispute between the informant and accused No.2. The application for temporary injunction filed by the complainant, who is arrayed as defendant No.3 in O.S.No.162/2019 before the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-III, Hubballi came to be rejected and similar application filed by accused No.2 herein as plaintiff was allowed vide order dated 19.08.2019. Due to ill-will, this false complaint came to be filed without any basis. The informant has not sustained any injuries. The so-called weapon was already seized. The petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. Accused Nos.2 to 4 are already enlarged on bail. While accused No.2 is enlarged on bail by this Court, accused Nos.3 and 4 have enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court. Petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be

¶27

¶28

imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶29

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. He is the main accused, who illegally tress passed into the shop belonging to the informant and tried to assault him with deadly weapon i.e., axe, to cause the death of the informant. The weapon was recovered at the instance of present petitioner. The investigation is still under progress. Specific overt act is alleged against the present petitioner. Looking to the seriousness of offence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is:

¶31

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶32

¶33

My answer to the above point is in the ‘Affirmative’ for

¶34

the following:

¶35

R E A S O N S

¶36

The informant lodged the first information on 23.01.2021 at 9.15 p.m. alleging commission of the offence by the accused on the same day at about 7.00 p.m. The present petitioner along with accused Nos.2 and 3 are specifically named in the first information. Specific overt act is also alleged against the present petitioner as he was armed with deadly weapon i.e., axe and tried to assault the informant with an intention to cause his death. Allegations made against the petitioner are of serious nature. At this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. However, the material discloses that there is civil dispute between the parties. Even though, the investigation is under progress, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. Admittedly, accused Nos.2 to 4 are already enlarged on bail. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the present petitioner is entitled for grant of regular bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the

¶37

¶38

prosecution that the petitioner may commit similar offence or abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶39

Hence, I answer the above point in ‘Affirmative’

¶40

and proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petition is allowed.

¶43

The petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.12/2021 of

¶44

Keshwapur Police Station is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to following conditions:

¶45

i. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

¶46

ii. He shall not commit similar offences;

¶47

iii. He shall not threaten or tamper prosecution witnesses; and

¶48

iv. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the Court as and when required.

¶49

Ckk

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

JUDGE

Shri.Maheshkumar S/O Achayya Kastala v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Maheshkumar S/O Achayya Kastala 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

Niyajbasha S/O. Abdul Rahaman Vs the State of Karnataka

Honnappa S/O. Hanamantappa Koravar Vs State of Karnataka

V.M. Muniswami S/O. Hanumappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Annappa Kallappa Nayar Vs Sri.Iranna Kallappa Galibi

Shri Husainsab Imran S/O Hasansab Shaikh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sunil S/O Tippanna Kadannavar Vs the State of Karnataka