Dismissed

Sri. P Manoj v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2021CRL.P/8595/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the plea refusing bail. The court held that since investigation was pending and the petitioner was alleged to have assaulted a vital part of the body with a machete, it was not a fit case to enlarge him on bail. The petition was dismissed. Reliance was placed on the preliminary facts of assault and the post of assa

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed; bail was refused.

Sri. P Manoj Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8595 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. P. MANOJ, SON OF S. PARAMESH, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.73, 2ND MAIN ROAD, KANAKANAGAR, MOODALAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 072.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.P.M.GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA.P.M, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(SMT. RASHMI JADHAV. HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.453/2021 OF MADANAYAKANAHALLY P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,147,148,307,149 OF IPC.

¶16

¶17

THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU HAS REJECTED THE BAIL PETITION ON 08.10.2021 IN CRL.MISC.NO.1567/2021.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C by the accused to enlarge him on bail in Cr.No.453/2021 of Madanayakanahalli police station, Bengaluru City registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 R/w Section 149 of IPC.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent-State and perused the material available on record.

¶22

It is the case of prosecution that, about six months prior to the date of incident, the first informant came in contact with one Nikitha through Instagram and he sent birthday wishes to her. About two months

¶23

¶24

prior, someone called him on his mobile and started abusing him saying as to why he has sent messages to the said girl. Thereafter, on 24.09.2021 at about 3.15 p.m., when the first informant was near Machohalli Gate Auto stand, 8 to 9 unknown persons came and started abusing him in filthy language. He was assaulted by one of the accused with machete and he sustained injuries to his leg. When one Kiran and Harish came to the spot, another accused assaulted Harish with machete on his head causing bleeding injuries.

¶25

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the FIR is registered against 8 to 9 unknown persons and the name of the petitioner is not found in the FIR. He submits that the injured is already discharged from the hospital. The petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offences. All other accused who are arrested have been enlarged on bail.

¶26

¶27

The petitioner was arrested on 29.09.2021 and he is in judicial custody. He submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions. Accordingly, seeks to allow the petition.

¶28

Learned HCGP contends that as per the statement of injured Harish it is this petitioner who has assaulted him with a machete on his head. She contends that investigation is still pending. Hence, seeks to reject the petition.

¶29

I have perused the discharge summary of

¶30

injured Harish, wherein it is mentioned that he sustained deep two lacerated wound over right parietal region. Even though FIR is registered against unknown persons, the investigation conducted so far has revealed that, it is this petitioner who assaulted on the head of the injured, which is a vital part of the body, with a machete.

¶31

¶32

Considering that investigation is still pending, I

¶33

am of the view that this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. The petition is dismissed.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Sri. P Manoj v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. P Manoj 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

A P Manjunatha Gupta Vs Smt Latha

M/S Star Electronics Vs M/S Boom Systems

The State of Karnataka Vs Azgar Basha

Anand Vs Stae by Puttenahalli Police Station

Ravichandra v Vs Rosi Line Reena Rani

Sri Hanumesh Vs State of Karnataka