Allowed

Prashanth S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 May 2021CRL.P/3545/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Accused No. 2, in a case involving offences under IPC Sections 143, 504, 307, and 149. The Court held that the petitioner did not require custody and made out a prima facie case, directing police to enlarge him on bail upon arrest subject to specific conditions including a monetary bond.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail directing the police to enlarge him on bail upon arrest, conditioned upon execution of a personal bond of Rs. 2 lakhs with one surety and adherence to speci

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MAY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3545/2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

PRASHANTH S S/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT NO. 349 ALASARI ROAD VARTHUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560087

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M R, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VARTHUR POLICE REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.76/2021 REGISTERED BY VARTHUR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 504, 307, 149 OF IPC.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government pleader for the respondent, and also perused the records.

¶19

This petition is filed by Accused No.2 in Crime No.76/2021 registered with Varthur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 504, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner’s application under similar provision before the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in Criminal Misc. Petition No.594/2021 is rejected by order dated 16.04.2021.

¶20

The prosecution’s case against the petitioner is that the complainant, Sri. Ramu son of Muniyappa and his friends as also the Accused No.1 [Sri. Krishna] and his friends were celebrating Holi near Madhuranagar Recreation Club. There

¶21

¶22

was exchange of words between the complainant/his friends and the accused No.1 and his friends with the Accused No.1 and his friends abusing the complainant. The Accused No.1 called his friends (the petitioner and others), and when they reached the premises, the Accused No.1 took a knife which was with the petitioner and assaulted the complainant. When the complainant tried to avoid the blow he suffered injuries on his one of his ears.

¶23

It is undisputed that the complainant was shifted to Hospital with the help of his son, and as part of the treatment, his left auricle is amputated and he is subsequently discharged. Smt. Namitha Mahesh, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the investigation is still on and the knife used to inflict injuries on the complainant is yet to be recovered. If the petitioner is granted bail, the knife, a crucial link, will not be recovered. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds urged in support of the petition, submits that even according to the prosecution the overt act is only

¶24

¶25

against the Accused No.1 and after the complainant was injured, the Accused No.1 as well as the others left the place of occurrence. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he reached the place of occurrence when the Accused No.1 called on his mobile with a knife on his person, and there is no allegation that the petitioner either assaulted the complainant or carried the knife after the incident. The allegation in that regard are only against the Accused No.1.

¶26

On consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the records, especially because there is no dispute that the complainant, who suffered injuries on his ear, has been discharged after removal of the injured auricle, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner need not undergo custody only because the petitioner could produce complainant’s medical records when the same is not produced by the prosecution. The Sessions Court has rejected the petitioner’s application primarily on such ground. The petitioner has made out prima facie case for grant of anticipatory bail and therefore the following:

¶27

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail directing the respondent – police to enlarge the petitioner on bail in case he is arrested in Cr.No.76/2021 of Varthur Police Station and on he executing his personal bail bond for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs with one surety, for the like sum to the satisfaction of the IO/Concerned Court subject to following conditions:

¶30

The petitioner shall appear before the IO and co-operate with the IO in the investigation, and that he shall also appear before the trial Court regularly on all the dates of hearing and co-operate for early disposal.

¶31

The petitioner shall not involve in any offence and shall not leave or change the abode without prior permission.

¶32

¶33

3) The petitioner shall not threaten or entice

¶34

the informant or prosecution witnesses.

¶35

The petitioner shall mark his attendance with the Varthur Police Station on 5^th of every month till final report is submitted.

¶36

The petitioner shall not leave Karnataka

¶37

without the permission of the Court.

¶38

SD/JUDGE

¶39

AN/-

Prashanth S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashanth S 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

Smt Jayamma Vs the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer

Rafeeque Pasha Vs C M Jagadeesh

Mukthiyar Pasha Vs C M Jagadeesh

Sri H K Sumair Vs the Authorized Officer

Irfan Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

H N Kanthraju Vs Sri H N Dinakara Prasad