Allowed

Mohan Kotiyan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 May 2022CRL.P/2199/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition seeking regular bail for the petitioner accused of offences including IPC 307, 324, and 307. The court ruled that the intention to take life is a matter for trial and granted bail subject to standard conditions including bond and appearance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to execution of personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/-, two sureties, not tampering with witnesses, and appearing on all future hearing dates.

Mohan Kotiyan Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2199/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOHAN KOTIYAN, S/O NARAYAN KOTIAN, O/C ELECTRICIAN IN PRIVATE FIRM, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO 2-19/13, URUNDADI GUDDE, KAVOOR, PANJIMOGRU, MANGALURU, D.K.-575015. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. POOJA KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI DINESH KUMAR RAO K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KANKANDADY TOWN POLICE STATION, MANGALURU-56006. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURR-560001. … RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.133/2021 REGISTERED BY KANKANADY TOWN POLICE STATION, D.K., MANGALURU (C.C.NO.64/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.-VII COURT, MANGALURU) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 427, 287, 354, 324, 326, 506 AND 307 OF IPC.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.133/2021 of Kankanady Town Police Station, D.K., Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 287, 354, 324, 326, 506 and 307 of IPC.

¶18

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶19

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶20

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

¶21

that there was a galata between the petitioner and his wife and the same was witnessed by the complainant as well as others and when they tried to pacify the galata, the incident was taken place. As a result, C.W.1 to C.W.3 sustained simple injuries and C.W.3 also sustained grievous injury and hence invoked the offences under Sections 427, 287, 354, 324, 326, 506 and 307 of IPC.

¶22

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶24

the incident was taken place between the petitioner and his wife and when the other witnesses have intervened, the galata was taken place and there was no any intention to take away the life and the nature of injuries are also simple in nature and only one grievous injury that too on the hand and the same is not on the vital part and hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail with conditions.

¶25

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the wound certificate discloses that there is a grievous wound and others have sustained simple injuries and the charge-sheet is also filed.

¶26

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, as per the wound certificate C.W.1 to C.W.3 have sustained simple injuries and apart from that, C.W.3

¶28

has also sustained grievous injury and when the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is filed, whether the petitioner was having any intention to take away the life or not is

¶29

¶30

a matter of trial. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶31

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶32

following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.133/2021 of Kankanady Town Police Station, D.K., Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 287, 354, 324, 326, 506 and 307 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

(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.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the

¶39

¶40

Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Mohan Kotiyan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Kotiyan v. the 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

Papanna Vs State of Karnataka

A Krishna Vs Sriram Fin Corporation

Sri. Madhukeshwara G M Vs Sri. Harikishore

Rakesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr N R Sugandaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Ramu P S Vs State of Karnataka