Allowed

Anukumar J v. Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2022CRL.P/5651/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed bail to the petitioner accused in a case involving offences under Sections 307, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The court noted the injury was simple, the victim had recovered, and the prosecution witnesses were not in danger. Bail was granted subject to a bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed bail on personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with sureties, subject to specified conditions.

Anukumar J v Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5651/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ANUKUMAR J.V., S/O. VASU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT BISHINAKUPPA VILLAGE PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU-570017 … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY V.V.PURAM POLICE STATION MYSURU-570007 REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-01. … RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.23/2022 OF V.V.PURAM P.S., MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 448, 307, 323, 504, 506 R/W. SECTION 34 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/accused in Crime No.23/2022 of V.V. Puram Police Station, Mysuru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 307, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶18

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 that on 23.05.2022, there was a quarrel in the early morning at 10.00 a.m. and on the same day at 7.30 p.m., suddenly this petitioner and other accused persons trespassed the house of the complainant and abused in filthy language and assaulted with their hands and when he tried to escape from the clutches, he fell down, at that time, this petitioner took out a size stone and dropped on his head. But, in the process of warding off the

¶21

¶22

said blow, he had sustained injury to his head. Hence, he went to the hospital and took treatment and given the complaint.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that incident has taken place on 23.05.2022 and complaint was given on the next day i.e., on 24.05.2022 and complainant himself went to the police station and hence, it is clear that the injured is out of danger and there was no intention to commit the offence. The counsel also would submit that this petitioner has been apprehended and he is in custody from 31.05.2022 and no need of further custodial investigation.

¶24

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that this petitioner made an attempt to take away the life by dropping stone on his head and the victim escaped from the said act of the petitioner and he had sustained injury, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner.

¶25

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly taking

¶26

¶27

note of the fact that incident had taken place earlier in the morning and subsequently in the evening, an assault was made and apart from that, injury is also simple in nature and the injured himself went to the police station after taking first aid at K.R. Hospital and considering the accusation made in the complaint, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime No.23/2022 of V.V. Puram Police Station, Mysuru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 307, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶30

(i) The petitioner shall execute 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.

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

(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.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Anukumar J v. Vs State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anukumar J v. Vs 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

M N Sunil Vs the State of Karnataka

Syed Shabaj Vs Smt. Prema

Abdul Majeed Vs State of Karnataka

Devaraj @ Deva 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