Allowed

Sri Chiranjeevi N R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2022CRL.P/8663/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail petitions for two petitioners in a grapple case involving assault. Noting evidentiary gaps regarding medical treatment and counter-allegations in a related FIR, the court imposed strict conditions on bail, including appearance and cooperation with the trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety subject to conditions of no re-offending, no witness tampering, cooperation in trial, and appearance on dat

Sri Chiranjeevi N R Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8595/2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8663/2022

¶5

CRL.P.NO.8595/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.HARISH R S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH N CURRENTLY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NONAVINAKERE VILLAGE NO.149, SOPPINA BEEDI TIPTUR TALUK - 572 224 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶8

….PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.SUNIL RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶10

CRL.P.NO.8663/2022

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI CHIRANJEEVI N R S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH N CURRENTLY AGED 30 YEARS R/AT NONAVINAKERE VILLAGE SOPPINA BEEDI TIPTUR TALUK - 572 224 TUMKURU DISTRICT ….PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI.SUNIL RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NONAVINAKERE VILLAGE - 572 224 POLICE STATION, TIPTUR TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT, BENGALURU - 560 001 ...RESPONDENT (COMMON)

¶17

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶18

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.70/2022 OF NONAVINAKERE POLICE STATION, TUMKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323,324,307,504 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C COURT, TIPTUR, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

These petitions are filed by the petitioners under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging them on regular bail in Crime No.70/2022 of Nonavinakere Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504 read with

¶22

Section 34 of IPC.

¶23

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that:

¶24

¶25

On 25.07.2022 morning 6.00 a.m. the complainant has lodged a complaint alleging that on 24.07.2022 at about 11.00 p.m. near the house of the accused in Gungarumale road, when he was walking, he heard the sound of quarrel between petitioners and Ningaraju and he went there to pacify the dispute. Then the petitioner quarreled with him and he was assaulted by sickle on his head and then Ningaraju was also assaulted by a hammer. Then they were shifted to hospital and after obtaining treatment, a complaint came to be lodged. The petitioners were arrested and were remanded to the judicial custody. They have moved bail petitions before the Sessions judge and the Sessions judge has rejected the bail petitions. Hence the petitioners are before this Court.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondentState. Perused the records.

¶27

It is evident from the records that the FIR and further statement as well as charge sheet allegations discloses that the complainant tried to shift the scene of the offence and

¶28

¶29

further they wanted to change the nature of the entire case of the prosecution. Complainant’s further statement clearly discloses that he has deviated from earlier complaint allegations. On the contrary, the records further discloses that the present complainant and CW.2 Ningaraju were also prosecuted in respect of they trespassing into the house of the present petitioners and outraging modesty of female members of the family of petitioners as well as assaulting and threatening them. The said crime came to the registered in Crime No.71/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 354, 506, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. Both the offences are alleged to have taken place at the same time. But subsequently, it is evident that in the present case there was an attempt to shift to the scene of the offence.

¶30

The records discloses that the complainant has suffered only simply injuries. All along it is alleged that CW.2 Ningaraju has suffered grievous injuries on his head. But on perusal of the medical records it is evident that he has obtained treatment on next day morning. But the medical officer found

¶31

¶32

that the wound was sutured. Interestingly, all along it is alleged that Ningaraju also obtained treatment in the Nonavinakere government Hospital on the same night for injuries sustained by him. But the document produced by the learned HCGP discloses that Ningaraju has never obtained treatment in Nonavinakere Government hospital. But on the next day morning he was examined by doctor and the injuries were found to be sutured. In such an event he ought to have obtained treatment somewhere else. But that portion of the investigation is completely silent and there is no material evidence as to where exactly the injured Ningaraju has obtained treatment on that night when he suffered grievous injuries and it is necessary to ascertain the history he has given there and looking into these aspects, it appears that the Investigating Agency as well as complainant are concealing certain material aspects.

¶33

However, it is also evident that the investigation is concluded and charge sheet has been submitted. The presence of the petitioners is no more required by the investigating agency. It is submitted by the learned HCGP that the material

¶34

¶35

object were recovered at the instance of petitioner. But that itself is not a ground and all these aspects are required to be tested during course of trial.

¶36

Looking to these facts and circumstances and considering the counter complaint filed by the mother of the petitioners, I do not find any impediment in admitting the petitioners on bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the petitions need to be allowed by imposing certain stringent conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petitions are allowed .

¶39

The petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.70/2022 of Nonavinakere Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC on each of them executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only) with one surety

¶40

¶41

for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned

¶42

Court subject to the following conditions:

¶43

(i) Petitioners shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

¶44

(ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;

¶45

(iii) Petitioners shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the case;

¶46

(iv) Petitioners shall appear before the Court, on all the dates of hearing, unless they were exempted by a specific order.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

PKN

Sri Chiranjeevi N R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chiranjeevi N R 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

Anil Kumar H S Vs State by Nandini Layout P S

Sri. Manjunath J Vs State of Karnataka

Raghu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Sunka Bhovi Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Varun Gurjar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Harish R Vs State of Karnataka