Allowed

Sri. Arjun Mewara v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 May 2021CRL.P/3639/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition filed under Section 439 CrPC by two accused persons in a criminal cause involving violence and weapons. The court ruled that despite prosecution apprehensions, the fears of absconding and tampering could be managed by imposing strict bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail with conditions including execution of personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, prohibition on tampering, and restriction on leaving jurisdiction.

Sri. Arjun Mewara Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF MAY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3639/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. Arjun Mewara S/o Suresh Chand, Aged about 26 years, R/o No.42, Cubbon Road, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru -560 001. Also permanently R/at: No.66, Mewara, Mandiya Road, Gandhinagar, Pali District, Rajasthan - 306 401. 2. Sri. Ramesh Babu S/o Sriramulu, Aged about 35 years, R/o Marlanahalli Village, Yaradoni Road, Gangavathi, Koppala Dist. -583 227. Also permanently R/at: No.363, AECS Layout, D Block, Singasandra, Bengaluru - 560 068.

¶9

…Petitioners

¶10

(By Sri. Bharath Kumar V., Advocate)

¶11

¶12

AND:

¶13

State of Karnataka Through Station House Officer, High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru. Represented by: State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru - 560 001. …Respondent

¶14

(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP)

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Cr.No.42/2021 of High Grounds P.S, Bengaluru City for the offence P/U/S 324, 307, 504, 506B r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.30 of Indian Arms Act.

¶16

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is preferred by accused Nos.2 and 3, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, seeking to enlarge them on bail in Crime No.42/2021 registered by High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of 8^th Addl. CMM Court Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru City for the

¶19

¶20

offences punishable under Sections 324, 307, 504, 506(B) read with section 34 of IPC and Section 30 of Indian Arms Act, 1959.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the complaint came to be lodged by Smt. Rekha, alleging that on 03/04/2021 at about 10-45 p.m., the complainant was returning home along with her husband from their shop and accused No.1 along with the petitioners followed them and hit the complainant and her husband with iron rod and caused injuries. The complainant’s husband pushed the accused No.1, and the complainant was rescued and accused ran away from the spot.

¶22

It is the case of the complainant that there is some interse business dispute with regard to the shop, run in the commercial street area between the complainant and accused. It is also the case of the prosecution that the petitioners along with accused No.1

¶23

¶24

threatened to kill the complainant and her husband due to business rivalry.

¶25

It is the contention of the petitioners that they are innocents and they are not involved in the alleged incident as claimed by the complainant. The allegation of the prosecution that the accused brandished the revolver and threatened to kill, admittedly is made against accused No.1. Apart from the solitary statement given by the complainant that petitioners herein hit with iron rod, there is no overtact alleged against the petitioners.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have deep roots in the society, they are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the court in the event of granting bail and they will not abscond from the jurisdiction of this Court. He further contends that the petitioners do not have any other previous criminal antecedents and they shall not

¶27

¶28

tamper and hamper with the prosecution evidence and investigation by the police.

¶29

Learned High Court Government Pleader relies on the objections raised before the Sessions Court and opposes the grant of bail in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have assaulted the complainant with iron rod, which has been seized and the same was recovered by the police. The petitioners in the event of grant of bail, they would abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court and they may tamper with the evidence and hamper the investigation. The apprehension of the learned HCGP could be allayed by imposing certain conditions on the petitioners in order to see that they do not abscond from the jurisdiction of the court and they do not tamper with prosecution witnesses and hamper the investigation.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶31

petitioners and learned HCGP, it is noticed that the

¶32

¶33

present case has arisen due to business rivalry of the petitioners with the complainant with regard to running the shop in the prime location in Bengaluru. On perusal of the FIR, though it is the assertion in the complaint that the complainant has been assaulted with the iron rod by the petitioners herein, in column no.7, injuries caused as against the complainant and her husband are minor in nature. However, it does not mean that the petitioners may not be involve in the incident as alleged by the prosecution. However, this Court does not want to venture into the merit of the matter with regard to the petitioners whether they are guilty of the offences or not.

¶34

In order to decide the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., as required under law what is to be seen is, the nature and gravity of the offence committed by the petitioners, whether the petitioners are involved in other criminal cases leading to their conviction therein; and if the petitioners are released on bail, whether they would

¶35

¶36

flee from justice; and whether they would tamper with the witnesses and hamper the investigation by the police.

¶37

The apprehension raised by the learned HCGP is with regard to the petitioners absconding from justice, but the same can be allayed by imposing certain conditions to prevent the petitioners from absconding and fleeing from justice and also certain conditions not to tamper with the witnesses and hamper with police investigation. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners herein deserve to be enlarged on bail by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶40

The petitioners / accused Nos.2 and 3 shall be released on bail in Crime No. 42/2021 of High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 307, 504, 506B read with 34 of the

¶41

¶42

Indian Penal Code and Section 30 of the Arms Act, pending on the file of the LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-72), subject to the following conditions:

¶43

i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with a likesum surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶44

ii) Petitioners shall not make any inducement directly or indirectly, enforce any threat to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case.

¶45

iii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the witness evidence and hamper with the investigation to be conducted by the police.

¶46

iv) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the court.

¶47

v) Petitioners shall provide their phone number and the permanent address to the Investigating Officer and they shall not

¶48

¶49

change their address without informing the Investigating Officer.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Mkm

Sri. Arjun Mewara v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Arjun Mewara 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

Sri M Sudhakar Vs the Reserve Bank of India

Mr.Surendra Kular Vs Smt Parvathi

Smt Sahanashree K S Vs Kaveri Grameena Bank

Sri S K Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vishwanath Vs the State of Karnataka

Asha R Shetty Vs State of Karnataka