Allowed

Anthony Raj. B, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2022CRL.P/5897/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

H.P. Sandesh J granted regular bail to four petitioners accused of assaulting a complainant at the instance of a co-accused. The Court noted the injured was discharged within four days and the co-accused was already on bail, finding it fit to release the others.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail with personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- each and two sureties, restricted from leaving jurisdiction or tampering with witnesses.

Anthony Raj. B, Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5897/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ANTHONY RAJ. B, S/O BALARAJ, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O U26, 1^ST CROSS, CHRISTIAN COLONY, SRIRAMPURAM, BANGALORE-560021.

¶9

PRASHANTH R, S/O RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O 11^TH MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, HONGASANDRA, NEAR SLB BANU CLASSIC APARTMENT, BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE-560068.

¶10

HARSHAVARDHANA M, S/O LATE MAHADEV, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O NO.335, 13^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560003.

¶11

NIKHIL KUMAR S, S/O SURESH S, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT NO.49, HUNSAMARANAHALLI, HOSAHALLI, BANGALORE-560064. ...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI RAMESHA H.N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY GONIBEEDU P.S., REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

KIRAN V.N., S/O NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O MEKANAGODDE VILLAGE, GONIBEEDU HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577132. ...RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP FOR R-1)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.51/2022 OF GONIBEEDU P.S., CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 504, 114, 307, 149 AND 120B OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE COURT ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND C.J.M COURT, MUDIGERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking

¶22

regular bail of the petitioners in Crime No.51/2022 of Gonibeedu Police Station, Chikkamagaluru District, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 114, 307, 149 and 120B of IPC.

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 and the complainant were friends. About 2 years back, when accused No.1 and his friends were playing cards, Belur police raided the spot and lodged case against them. In this connection, accused No.1 was telling to his friends that the complainant has given information to the police and liable for registering case against them and he would commit the murder of the complainant. About 3 years back, the complainant has given loan of Rs.30,000/- to his relative Archana of Hosapura and he was asking her to repay the same. That on 23.05.2022 at about 12.15 p.m., Archana called him over phone and asked him to come to her home and receive the amount. At about 1.30 p.m., the complainant was going on his motorcycle and at that time, four persons followed him in two bikes and near Anedibba Circle, they stopped their motorcycle across his bike and restrained him from moving further. The accused persons abused him in filthy language and told that

¶26

¶27

accused No.1 sent them to commit his murder and by saying so, they have assaulted him with chopper on his neck. When the complainant put his hand across the blow, he sustained injuries on his palm, another accused assaulted him with chopper on his back. At that time, the persons, who were near the said place have shouted and on seeing them, they ran away from the place attributing that they will not leave him, as told by Karthik boss.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 5 and the allegation against them is that they have assaulted the complainant with the chopper with an intention to take away the life at the instance of accused No.1.

¶29

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the wound certificate clearly discloses that injury Nos.2, 3, 6 and 7 are grievous in nature and other injuries are simple in nature and also contend that these petitioners have inflicted injury at the instance of accused No.1.

¶30

In reply to the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶31

¶32

submits that this Court has already granted bail in favour of accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.5480/2022 and hence these petitioners may also be enlarged on bail.

¶33

The learned High Court Government Pleader submits

¶34

that accused No.1 was not at the scene of occurrence and hence this Court granted bail.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶36

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material available on record, history is clear that assault by unknown persons. The only allegation against the petitioners is that, at the instance of accused No.1, the assailants came and assaulted the complainant. The injured is out of danger and though some of the injuries are grievous in nature, certain factors are found in the material and the same is not on the vital part. Taking note of the same is not on the vital part, this Court exercised the discretion. The allegation against these petitioners is that they inflicted injury and also recovery was made and apart from that,

¶37

the incident was taken place on 23.05.2022 and these petitioners are in custody from 27.05.2022 and within four days,

¶38

¶39

the injured was discharged from the hospital. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners.

¶40

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶41

following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.51/2022 of Gonibeedu Police Station, Chikkamagaluru District, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 114, 307, 149 and 120B of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶44

(i) The petitioners shall execute their 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 jurisdictional Court.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against them is disposed of.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Anthony Raj. B, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anthony Raj. B, 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

Manjunatha Vs the State

Sri. Reddappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Somachari Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Naveena @ Subsidy Naveena Vs the State of Karnataka

Dayananda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Anjaneppa Vs the State through the Inspector of Police