Allowed

Rangunayaka v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2021CRL.P/221/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by six accused persons facing charges for assault. The High Court allowed the petition, directing release on bail subject to conditions including executing a personal bond, surrendering within 15 days, and regular reporting.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release petitioners on bail in Crime No.345/2020 subject to executing personal bond, surrender within 15 days, not committing similar offences, not tampering with witnesses, and marking a

Rangunayaka Vs State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.221 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

RANGUNAYAKA S/O. LATE NANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT ALAGUDU VILLAGE, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 124.

¶9

MOHAN @ MOLEHUNDI S/O. SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YERAS, RESIDING AT ALAGUDU VILLAGE, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 124.

¶10

RAGHUVEER S/O. LATE NANJUNDANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.591, LALBAHADDUR SHASTRI ROAD, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 124.

¶11

VENKATARAMANASHETTY S/O. MAHADEVASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT ALAGUDU VILLAGE, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 124.

¶12

¶13

MAHADEVU @ CHIKKAMAHADEVU @ DANDI S/O. LATE MARAIAH BASAVAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT ALAGUDU VILLAGE, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 124. 6. NINGARAJU @ PANDU HUVINA S/O. LATE MANTELINGU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NILASOGE VILLAGE, MUGURU HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 124.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA T. NARASIPURA POLICE STATION, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 124, (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.)

¶18

... RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.345/2020 REGISTERED BY T. NARASIPURA POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 114, 504, 506 AND 307 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.345/2020 registered by the T.Narasipura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 114, 504, 506 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶25

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Raghavendra, the Police registered a case alleging that on 11.12.2020 at about 9.00 p.m., the accused persons said to have assaulted his brother Rakesh with deadly weapon. Therefore, they lodged a complaint which was registered in Crime No.344/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and other provisions of IPC. When they were coming back from the police station after lodging a complaint, again these accused persons came in car along with deadly weapons and assaulted the complainant and his brother stating that how dare to lodge complaint. After assaulting, they ran

¶26

¶27

away from the spot. Again they lodged a complaint. The police are making hectic efforts to arrest these petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and a false case has been registered only to harass the petitioners. One of the petitioner’s relative has also filed a complaint in Crime No.348/2020 registered against the complainant and his family members. The petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. The injuries are simple in nature. Hence, prayed for grant of bail.

¶29

Learned High Court Government Pleader objected the bail petition and contended that the petitioners are the offenders causing assault on the complainant. If the petitioners are granted bail, they may commit similar offence. Investigation is still pending. Hence, prayed to reject the bail petition.

¶30

¶31

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly, there are two cases registered against these petitioners on the same day for having assaulted the complainant and his brother. After lodging a complaint, it is also seen that another case is also registered against the complainant in Crime No.348/2020. The injured persons have already discharged from the hospital. Injuries are simple in nature. Therefore, without expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the case, by imposing certain conditions, if bail is granted, no prejudice would cause to the prosecution case. Hence, the following

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Criminal petition is allowed .

¶34

The respondent – Police are directed to release the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.345/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 114, 504, 506 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

¶36

(i) Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶37

(ii) Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order;

¶38

(iii) Petitioners shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

¶39

(iv) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;

¶40

(v) Petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. for a period of three months or till filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

GBB

Rangunayaka v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangunayaka v. 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

Harish @ Kulkul Vs State of Karnataka

Vinay @ Sentu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sanjeet Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraj K Vs State of Karnataka

M Susheela Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Mamatha M M Vs State