Allowed

Santhosh Kumar K. @ Santhu v. State by Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2021CRL.P/2889/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused facing charges of attempt to murder (IPC 307 read with 34). Bail was granted subject to specific conditions including execution of bond, surrender timeline, and restrictions on tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on anticipatory bail subject to execution of personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety, surrender within 15 days, and compliance with specified conditions.

Santhosh Kumar K. @ Santhu Vs State by… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2889 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SANTHOSH KUMAR K. @ SANTHU S/O. N. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NEAR ANJINEYA TEMPLE, KENCHENAHALLI, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 98.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SHASHIDHAR K.N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE BY KARNATAKA STATE BY RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR P.S., REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.308/2020 (C.C.NO.2168/2021) REGISTERED BY RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE IPC.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.308/2020 registered by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

¶20

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the mother

¶22

of the injured-Ajith filed a complaint to the Police on 5.12.2020 alleging that on 4.12.2020 at about 7.30 p.m., when she was in her house, some person came near the house and informed her that her son was assaulted by some persons and he had sustained bleeding injury and he has fall down near Nayandanahalli Quarters Bus Stop.

¶23

¶24

Immediately, she rushed to the spot and observed that her sons cloths were blood stained. Then she and her husband immediately took the injured to the Kempegowda Hospital and the complainant noticed that there was a stab injury on her son with the knife. On enquiry with her son, he informed that accused Nos.1, 2 and others picked up quarrel with him and assaulted him with knife and ran away from the spot. After registering the case, the Police arrested accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 and they are said to be released on bail. The Police are making hectic efforts to arrest this petitioner as his name is mentioned by the coaccused in their voluntary statement. He approached the Sessions Court for granting bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the case. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for grant of bail.

¶26

¶27

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

¶28

Pleader objected the bail petition and prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

¶29

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, it goes to show that though the records is against this petitioner that he has also assaulted the injured with cycle chain on the head. But the wound certificate does not reveal any injury on his head. Only one injury that is stab injury which was caused by accused No.1 who is already granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge. The name of the petitioner is not found in the FIR but his name is shown as accused No.5 in the chargesheet. There is no recovery from this petitioner. By imposing certain conditions, if the bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case. Hence, I pass the following

¶30

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Criminal petition is allowed .

¶33

The respondent – Police are directed to release the

¶34

petitioner/accused No.2 on bail in the event of his arrest for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

(i) Petitioner-accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶36

(ii) Petitioner shall surrender within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order;

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

(v) Petitioner shall be deemed custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872;

¶40

¶41

(vi) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for the purpose of investigation.

¶42

Further, if any material is collected by the Investigating Officer, he is at liberty to file additional charge-sheet.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

GBB

Santhosh Kumar K. @ Santhu v. State by Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh Kumar K. @ Santhu v. State by 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

Krishna C M @ Vs State by Kestur Police Station

Wasim @ Waseem Akram Vs the State of Karnataka

Surya S R Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Saleem Vs State by Yashwanthpura P S

Chandrashekar B R Vs Central Government of India

Mahadevaprasad Vs State by Cyber Crime Police