Allowed

Sri. Manikanta @ Mani v. State by Konanakunte Police Station

Karnataka HC5 May 2021CRL.P/3514/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 379, and 397 IPC, the High Court granted bail by imposing strict conditions, including a personal bond, attendance marks, and restrictions on leaving the jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail subject to execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety, appearing before I.O., marking attendance at police station twice a month, and not leaving

Sri. Manikanta @ Mani Vs State by Konanakunte Police Station — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF MAY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3514 OF 2021

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI MANIKANTA @ MANI S/O.LATE ARMUGAM AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NEAR ROCK HOOD SCHOOL 2^ND CROSS, MEENAKSHI LAYOUT C.K.PALYA, B.G.ROAD KOLIFORUM GATE BENGALURU-560 083

¶7

ASLAM PASHA @ TANVEER S/O.CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NEAR NOOR MEDICALS 1^ST CROSS, MASID STREET CROSS MUNISWAMY GARDEN NEELASANDRA BENGALURU-560 047 ... PETITIONERS

¶8

(BY SMT.N.PADMAVATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE BY KONANAKUNTE POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY-560 062 REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶11

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE PETITIONERS ON BAIL FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 504, 379, 397 OF IPC IN CRIME NO.219/2020 OF KONANAKUNTE POLICE

¶13

¶14

STATION WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE 2^ND ACMM, BENGALURU.

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.219/2020 of Konanakunte Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 379 and 397 of IPC pending on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶18

It is the case of prosecution that one Shyamu Marati, aged about 44 years working in a Private Company went for a walk on 06.10.2020 at 10.00 p.m. from B.K.Circle towards Bannerghatta Road. While he was standing near Bannerghatta Road, two unknown persons approached him and having consumed alcohol, picked up quarrel and hit the complainant with some object on the elbow and caused bleeding injuries. In this melee, the complainant’s small chain went missing at the spot. The complainant registered a complaint before the jurisdictional Police and a FIR came to be registered for the offence 341, 323, 504 and 379 of IPC against two unknown persons.

¶19

¶20

The complainant gave another complaint to the Police after six months based on which the petitioners were arrested by the respondent-Police on 28.03.2021 and remanded to Judicial Custody on 03.04.2021.

¶21

Petitioners filed bail petition under Section 439 before the learned Sessions Judge which came to be dismissed on the ground that the case is at the stage of investigation and that offence under Section 397 has been invoked by the Investigating Officer. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court seeking regular bail.

¶22

It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners are innocent and are not involved in the case as alleged in the complaint by the complainant. It is further contended that there is no recovery of any material from the petitioners. It is seen that a knife has been recovered and subjected to PF.No.94/2021. It is not the case of prosecution that knife was used during melee and assault was made against the complainant. As could be seen from the complaint even according to the complainant two unknown persons assaulted on the elbow and caused bleeding injuries in the scuffle and he has lost a small chain. Learned counsel further

¶23

¶24

contends that petitioners are permanent resident of Bengaluru City and they are ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this Court that they would not hamper with further investigation by the Police and they would not abscond from the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶25

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC has been invoked on the petitioners and after consideration of submission made, the trial Court has rightly rejected the bail petition and also in view of the fact that offences are punishable with imprisonment for a period of seven years and triable by the Court of Sessions. She supports the order passed by the Sessions Court and seeks for dismissal of present petition.

¶26

Having heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader, it is noticed that admittedly two unknown persons were implicated initially on the date of incident on 06.10.2020 and complaint was registered on 07.10.2020. Initially FIR has been registered under Sections 341, 504, 323 and 379 of IPC. Nothing had happened for six months and thereafter, petitioners have been arrested on

¶27

¶28

28.03.2021 and 02.04.2021. On perusal of the offences, it is seen that none of the offences are punishable with imprisonment for life or death. It is also not the case of the petitioners that they are habitual offenders and were involved in previous similar incident. The petitioners are aged about 33 years and 39 years and are permanent residents of Bengaluru.

¶29

In order to consider the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., it is necessary to see what is the nature and gravity of offence; the punishment imposed for the said offences; whether the petitioners would flee away from justice, if released on bail. In the present case on hand as noted above, none of the offences are punishable with life imprisonment or death. Neither is it the case of the prosecution that petitioners are habitual offenders nor that they are involved in the similar offences. At this stage, this Court cannot go into merits of the matter and it cannot be said that the accused are guilty of the offence, as of now there being no material on record, the benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused petitioners herein and the apprehension and concern of the learned High Court Government Pleader can be protected and allayed by imposing stringent conditions on petitioners.

¶30

¶31

9. Having heard learned counsel for petitioners and

¶32

learned High Court Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that petitioners could be released on bail by imposing certain stringent conditions. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) Criminal Petition is allowed;

¶35

ii) Petitioners are directed to be released on bail in Crime No.219/2020 of Konanakunte police station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 323, 379 and 397 of IPC subject to condition that the petitioners shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Only) each with one solvent surety (without insisting on solvency certificate) to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶36

iii) Petitioners shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly;

¶37

iv) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and cooperate with the Investigating Officer;

¶38

v) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission of the trial Court;

¶39

¶40

vi) Petitioners shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional Police Station twice in a month i.e. on Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. for a period of two months or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sri. Manikanta @ Mani v. State by Konanakunte Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manikanta @ Mani v. State by Konanakunte Police Station

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 M Sudhakar Vs the Reserve Bank of India

Mr.Surendra Kular Vs Smt Parvathi

Smt Sahanashree K S Vs Kaveri Grameena Bank

Sri. Arjun Mewara Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S K Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vishwanath Vs the State of Karnataka