Allowed

Sri Natarajan v. the State of Karntaka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2022CRL.P/5887/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the criminal petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for enlargement on bail. The court considered the chargesheet covering offences of attempt to murder, mischief, criminal intimidation, and illegal possession/use of arms.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties for like sum, not tampering witnesses, appearing at hearings, and not leaving jurisdiction.

Sri Natarajan Vs the State of Karntaka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01^st DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5887/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. NATARAJAN S/O. LATE UTTARAKUMARAN, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O. NAGAL VILLAGE, KEELALATHUR SIDE, GUDIYATHAM TALUK, VELLORE DISTRICT – 635813, TAMIL NADU STATE

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SEGARAN A., AND SRI. MURALI J., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

(SRI. VINAYAK V.S., HCGP FOR RESPONDENT)

¶13

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR. NO.238/2019 OF PARAPPANA AGRAHARA P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 447, 427, 506(B), 307 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 25 OF ARMS ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY

¶14

¶15

CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-70) BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.980/2021.

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT DHARWAD BENCH, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that, this petitioner who has been arrayed as accused No.1 having contact with accused No.2 when he was in jail and both of them developed friendship. That on 10.08.2019, the accused No.1 with an intention of taking away the life of C.W.14 and when the accused No.2 was not in the house, he took the pistol belonging to accused No.2 with 7 cartridge and went in a motorcycle belongs to accused No.2 and made search of C.W.14. On 11.08.2019 also enquired about C.W.13 with C.W.6 and when C.W.6 reveals that, nowhere in the

¶20

¶21

said address, the accused No.1 i.e. this petitioner left the house. Immediately after 15-20 minutes, he came and parked the motorcycle near the house of one Manjunath Reddy and he was searching C.W.13 and went and knocked the door of C.W.10, C.W.11 and C.W.12 houses. When they did not open the same, he went and knocked the door of C.W.9 house and immediately the surrounding people have tried to apprehend him and immediately he ran away from the first floor and C.W.1, C.W.6, C.W.7 and C.W.8 made an attempt to apprehend this petitioner and he escaped from the said spot and when they again tried to apprehend him, by that time he showed pistol and when he was chased by C.W.1, C.W.6, C.W.7 and C.W.8 and C.W.9 tried to fire against them and he also fired with the said pistol and hence, invoked the offence under Sections 447, 427, 506(B), 307 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act.

¶22

¶23

The counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶24

would submits that, he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any offence and none of the persons have sustained any injury in respect of the alleged firing and also there are no other any criminal antecedents against this petitioner and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that, the petitioner made an attempt to take away the life and not sustained any injury by any of the charge-sheet witnesses, but FSL report is pending regarding firing and hence, his presence is required. The learned counsel also would submits that, the cartridges have also been seized and yet to get the report.

¶26

5. Having heard the respective counsels and

¶27

also on perusal of the material, the allegations against the petitioner is that he took the pistol belonging to

¶28

¶29

accused No.2 and when he fired with the same, no injuries were sustained and no doubt the cartridges are also seized and same is sent for FSL and FSL report is yet to be received.

¶30

Having taking into consideration that none have sustained injuries in the incident and there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and FSL report is only for usage of the pistol which was seized and seizure also to be proved at the time of the trial. Hence, it is appropriate to enlarge him on bail with the conditions.

¶31

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.1 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.238/2019 of Parappana Agrahara P.S., Bengaluru, registered for the offences

¶34

¶35

punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506(B), 307 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act, 1959, subject to the following conditions:

¶36

(i) The petitioner/accused No.1 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.

¶37

(ii) The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

(iii) The petitioner/accused No.1 shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶39

(iv) The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Svh/-

Sri Natarajan v. the State of Karntaka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Natarajan v. the State of Karntaka

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

Thanveer Shariff Vs State by Narasimharaja Police Station

Sri Abhishek Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Shuheb Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Sardar Shariff Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandrashekar @ Ramchandra @ Chandru @ Chandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shanthawwa Vs Holeppa