Allowed

Sri Santosh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2022CRL.P/4109/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners and regular bail to another petitioner in a case involving assault and grievous hurt registered at Akkur Police Station. The court imposed standard bail conditions including executing a bond and appearing before the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail and released on bail subject to executing personal bonds of Rs. 2,00,000 each, appearing before the IO, and not leaving the jurisdiction.

Sri Santosh Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4109/2022 C/W. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5356/2022

¶7

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4109/2022:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SANTOSH, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O CHIKKAIDEGOWDA.

¶10

SRI NIRANJAN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O CHIKKAIDEGOWDA.

¶11

SRI CHIKKAIDEGOWDA, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O KARIGOWDA.

¶12

ALL ARE R/AT SOGALAPALYA VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA-562159. … PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI M. PARTHA SARATHY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY AKKUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. … RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶17

¶18

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 CR.NO.79/2022 OF AKKUR P.S., RAMANAGARA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶19

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5356/2022:

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

SRI CHANDAN, S/O CHIKKAIDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT SOGALAPALYA VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHIPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA-562159. … PETITIONER

¶22

(BY SRI M. PARTHA SARATHY, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY AKKUR POLICE, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. … RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.79/2022 OF AKKUR P.S., RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Crl.P.No.4109/2022 is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.79/2022 registered by Akkur Police Station, Ramanagara District, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC.

¶31

Crl.P.No.5356/2022 is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.79/2022 registered by Akkur Police Station, Ramanagara District, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC.

¶32

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

¶33

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that there was a dispute between the complainant’s party and the assailants’ party with regard to ownership of tamarind tree and that on 20.03.2022 at 10.00 a.m., quarrel was taken place

¶34

and accused No.1, who is in custody, inflicted injury with

¶35

¶36

machete on the head of the complainant. As a result, he had sustained fracture and other accused persons assaulted the complainant with club and stone and hence two persons have sustained grievous injuries and this incident was witnessed by the villagers and they pacified the incident and specific allegation is made that with an intention to take away the life, an assault was made and injured persons were taken to Channapatna Government Hospital in an ambulance and thereafter taken to NIMHANS Hospital and then they took treatment at KIMS Hospital. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and the matter is under investigation.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that specific overt-act allegation is made against accused No.1 that he inflicted injury with machete and other accused persons assaulted with club and stone. The learned counsel submits that no such incident was taken place and accused No.1 is in custody from 21.03.2022 from the date of arrest and when the investigation is almost complete and taking note of the injured persons are out of danger, the petitioners are entitled for bail.

¶38

¶39

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

¶40

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that accused No.1 inflicted injury with machete on the head of the complainant, as a result, he sustained parietal fracture. The other assailants also assaulted with club and other injured sustained grievous injuries and hence there is a prima facie case against the petitioners herein.

¶41

Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, no doubt, specific allegation is made against accused No.1 that with deadly weapon machete he inflicted injury on the complainant and accused No.1 is in custody from 21.03.2022. The injured was in the hospital for a period of nine days and the other injured was an inpatient for a period of two days. Taking into note of accused No.1 is in custody from the date of arrest i.e., 21.03.2022 and also taking note of the allegations made against other petitioners that they assaulted with stone and club and injured is also out of danger and taking note of the main assailant is in custody from last 3½ months and considering the accusations made against the other petitioners, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Sections

¶42

¶43

438 of Cr.P.C. and 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioners on bail with conditions.

¶44

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶45

following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

Crl.P.No.4109/2022 is allowed. Consequently, the

¶48

petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.79/2022 registered by Akkur Police Station, Ramanagara District, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶49

(i) The petitioners 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 likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶50

(ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶51

¶52

(iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and they shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

¶53

(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

¶54

(v) The petitioners 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.

¶55

Crl.P.No.5356/2022 is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.79/2022 registered by Akkur Police Station, Ramanagara District, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶56

(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs

¶57

¶58

only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

(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.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

JUDGE

¶64

Sri Santosh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Santosh 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

Anukumar J v Vs State of Karnataka

V. Vishnu Devan @ Vishnu @ Pochi Vs State of Karnataka by SHO

Mr. Ramashetty Pavan Kumar @ Pavan @ Pruthvi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadeesh Vs State of Karnataka

Kasappa @ Kashiray S/O Satyappa Pujari Vs the State of Karnataka

Prashantha. S. N. Vs State of Karnataka