Allowed

H G Naveen Naika @ Bhandary v. State by Sakarayapatna Police

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2022CRL.P/103/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted bail to the petitioner, accused in an assault case involving use of a beer bottle, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court was satisfied after noting the gravity of injuries and the nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to execute personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 with sureties; prohibited from tampering witnesses or leaving jurisdiction; required to appear at hearings.

H G Naveen Naika @ Bhandary Vs State by Sakarayapatna… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRL.P.NO.103/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

H G NAVEEN NAIKA @ BHANDARY S/O GOVINDA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/A HASTHINAPURA VILLAGE SAKARAYAPATNA POST KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577101

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.GIRISH.B.BALADARE, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY SAKARAYAPATNA POLICE CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577101

¶12

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI.KRISHNA KUMAR.K.K, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.173/2021 REGISTERED BY SAKKARAYAPATNA POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324, 392, 427, 504, 506, 307

¶16

¶17

R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C.,KADUR .

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.173/2021 of Sakkarayapatna Police Station,

¶21

Chikkamagaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 392, 427, 504, 506, 307 read with 34 of IPC.

¶22

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the State.

¶23

The factual matrix of the case is that on 02.12.2021, in the night, when the complainant and his friends were proceeding in the Car, four persons alighted

¶24

from the Car and abused the complainant in filthy language and when the complainant questioned, they

¶25

¶26

threw the beer bottle on the road. When the complainant

¶27

said the same would cause injury to the public, the person who had bottle in his hand assaulted the complainant on his face and head, as a result, the complainant sustained injuries. The other persons also took stones and assaulted the complainant and inflicted injury with stick and immediately they left the place. Based on the complaint, the police have investigated the matter.

¶28

The counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶29

submit that accused No.2 has been enlarged on bail and this petitioner, who has been arraigned as accused No.1 inflicted the injury with beer bottle. At the first instance,

¶30

case was registered against unknown persons and only on the say of co-accused, the name of this petitioner has

¶31

been implicated and hence prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶32

¶33

Per contra, learned High Court Govt. Pleader

¶34

appearing for the State would submit that the main allegation against this petitioner is that he assaulted the complainant with beer bottle on his face, head and on right eye. Hence, he submits that there is prima facie, the petitioner's presence is required for investigation. Learned HCGP would also submit that there were three accused.

¶35

This petitioner is also apprehended and he is in custody from last one month along with other accused and other cases have been registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 107 and 307 of IPC. Taking note of the nature of injuries and the gravity of the offence and also the circumstances under which the incident has taken place, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of CR.P.C., subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and

¶36

¶37

safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶40

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶41

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶42

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.

¶43

¶44

It is made clear that if petitioner commits similar

¶45

offence in future, the State is at liberty to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

NG*

H G Naveen Naika @ Bhandary v. State by Sakarayapatna Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H G Naveen Naika @ Bhandary v. State by Sakarayapatna Police

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

Y J Madhu Vs State by Tarikere Police

Puttaraju @ Ravi Vs State by Handanakere Police Station

Apporva Choudary Vs State of Karnataka

Kumar @ Kumarappa Vs State by Drfo

Kiran Babu S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mohana Vs State of Karnataka