Allowed

Sri Shankara M v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2022CRL.P/2423/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in two connected criminal petitions. The court considered the gravity of the offences, including an intention to take away life, and the injury status of the victim before allowing bail with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 were enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest, subject to surrender, bond execution, and strict court attendance.

Sri Shankara M Vs State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2423/2022 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2431/2022

¶6

IN CRL.P.NO.2423/2022

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI SHANKARA M S/O MANCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT MELLAHALLI VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-570001

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI PRATHEEP K C, ADVOCATE )

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO OF VARUNA POLICE STATION MYSURU DISTRICT REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN RESPECT OF CRIME NO.17/2022

¶16

¶17

REGISTERED BY THE VARUNA POLICE STATION, MYSURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 341, 307, 323, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶18

IN CRL.P.NO.2431/2022

¶19

BETWEEN

¶20

SRI VIJENDRA S/O CHKKARAJU AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT MELLAHALLI VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-570001

¶21

SRI ADARSHA S/O JAVARAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT MELLAHALLI VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-570001

¶22

MOHANA S/O JAVARAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT MELLAHALLI VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-570001

¶23

...PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI PRATHEEP K C, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND

¶26

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO OF VARUNA POLICE STATION MYSURU DISTRICT-570001 REP BY SPP OFFICE AT HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001

¶27

… RESPONDENT

¶28

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶29

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN RESPECT OF CRIME NO.17/2022 REGISTERED BY THE VARUNA POLICE STATION, MYSURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 341, 307, 323, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶31

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

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

These petitions are filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the respective petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.17/2022 registered by the Varuna Police Station, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 341, 307, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the respective

¶35

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

¶36

The factual matrix of the case is that with an

¶37

intention to take away the life of the victim, these petitioners have inflicted injury with the club and long and also caused the

¶38

¶39

life threat to him. If Raju and Mallesh were not intercepted and pacified the galata, they would have taken the life of his brother. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case in Cr.No.17/2022 for the aforesaid offences.

¶40

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that case and counter case are registered in Cr.Nos.17/2022 and 18/2022 and there was a delay of five days in filing the complaint and the injured is out of danger and hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶41

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that these petitioners have assaulted the victim with the long and club as a result the victim sustained simple and grievous injuries hence, there is a prima facie case against these petitioners and prayed to dismiss the petitions.

¶42

Having heard the respective counsel appearing for

¶43

the parties and also on perusal of the material available on record it discloses that there are case and counter case between the parties and the injured is out of danger and considering the

¶44

¶45

gravity of the offences and nature of the injuries sustained by the injured, it is a fit case enlarge the petitioners on bail exercising the discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶46

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶47

following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the

¶50

petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.17/2022 registered by the Varuna Police Station, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 341, 307, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-

¶51

(i) The petitioners/accused No.1, 3 to 5 shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶52

¶53

(ii) The petitioners//accused No.1, 3 to 5 shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶54

(iii) The petitioners//accused No.1, 3 to 5 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and they shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

¶55

(iv) The petitioners/accused No.1, 3 to 5 shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the Investigating Officer till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

¶56

(v) The petitioners/accused No.1, 3 to 5 shall mark their attendance once in a month i.e., on 30^th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Sri Shankara M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shankara M 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

Nagesh G C @ Nagesh Reddy Vs State by

Lawrence @ a. Anand Vs State of Karnataka

Veerabhadra Swamy S @ Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nithin Subbaiah B C Vs the State of Karnataka

Nayazulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Prithviraj S K Vs State of Karnataka