Allowed

Akshay v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2022CRL.P/9647/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court observed inconsistencies between the prosecution's allegations and the medical records. The accused was granted bail on a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.206/2022 on a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum.

Akshay Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9647/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

AKSHAY S/O NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O NEAR ANGANAVADI, KABBEPALYA CHIKKABANAVARA POST BENGALURU CITY-573 112 (NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)

¶7

….PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 127

¶11

REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.206/2022 OF SOLADEVANAHALLI P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307 R/W 34 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF THE CJM, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE AND ETC.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for enlarging him on bail in Crime No.206/2022 registered in Soledevanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶20

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the complainant Kiran has lodged a complaint making allegation that while he was studying in Eighth Standard in Bhuvana Education Trust situated in Chikkabanavara, he had some quarrel with present petitioner four years ago from the date of the complaint and therefore, it was alleged that the petitioner had a grudge against him.

¶21

According to the prosecution on 10.09.2022 at about 3

¶22

p.m., the complainant and his brother, Hemanth had gone to

¶23

¶24

Indian Petrol Bunk near Chikkabanavara to get their vehicle filled with petrol and at that time, the present petitioner came there and invited them for a birthday party and accordingly, they attended the birthday party in Kalathammanahalli and in the said party, there was some quarrel between the petitioner and the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant and one Ashok travelled in one bike and the petitioner and the brother of the complainant i.e., Hemanth travelled in one bike and as Hemanth did not return, the complainant went to the spot of the offence i.e., Ganigarahalli Circle and on seeing the complainant, the petitioner asked the juvenile offender to get a chopper and when the juvenile offender secured the chopper, the petitioner assaulted the complainant on his right ear. It is also alleged that when the complainant ran away, the petitioner chased him and assaulted him on his back three to four times and therefore, he went to the Hospital for obtaining a treatment and also, he lodged a complaint.

¶25

¶26

On the basis of the complaint, a crime was registered and the present petitioner was arrested. The petitioner moved for a regular bail before the learned Magistrate and the same came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader and having perused the records, it reveals that there was some quarrel between the complainant and the present petitioner about four years ago from the date of the incident. The case of prosecution discloses that on 10.09.2022 at about 6 p.m. in the birthday party, again there was some quarrel between the petitioner and the complainant and later, they cordially moved and the petitioner himself dropped the brother of the complainant by name Hemanth at the Ganigarahalli Circle. It was alleged that as the brother of the complainant did not return home, immediately the complainant went to the spot i.e., Ganigarahalli Circle, where he was assaulted by the petitioner.

¶28

¶29

As per the complaint allegations, the petitioner has assaulted the complainant near his right ear. This is a specific allegation made in the complaint, whereas, on perusal of the discharge summary produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertaining to Sapthagiri Super Speciality Hospital, it discloses that the complainant had suffered lacerated injury on the left scapular region and further, there was only one injury i.e., deep laceration measuring 3 X 1 cm. at the mid lumbar vertebra of the complainant. The allegations in the complaint regarding assault near the right ear of the complainant but the medical records disclose contrary injury. Even though in the complaint it was alleged that the petitioner assaulted the complainant about three to four times on his back, but it was mentioned in the discharge summary that only one injury was noticed on the back. The complainant was admitted in the Hospital in the early morning on 11.09.2022 at about 4.52 a.m. and immediately after suturing, he was discharged. Thus, it is clear that there were no grievous injuries caused to the

¶30

¶31

complainant. Further, the medical evidence runs in contrary to the complaint allegations. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable exclusively with death or imprisonment of life. However, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the chopper was recovered at the instance of the present petitioner, whereas, the medical evidence discloses that the assault was by knife.

¶32

Considering all these inconsistent aspects, in my considered opinion, the petitioner can be admitted on regular bail as his presence is no more required by the Investigating Agency. However, the other apprehensions raised by the learned High Court Government Pleader can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition is allowed . The petitioner/Accused is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.206/2022 registered in Soledevanahalli Police

¶35

¶36

Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru (R), on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions that,-

¶37

i) He shall not indulge in any of the criminal activities.

¶38

ii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶39

iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court, without prior permission

¶40

iv) He shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific order.

¶41

v) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer during course of investigation as and when directed.

¶42

vi) He shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer/SHO between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. on every first and third Mondays of the month till the final report is submitted.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

PKS

Akshay v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay 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

Smt Jyothi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. P. Naveen Kumar Vs the Sriram General Insurance

Sri Jattoji Rao @ Appaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Nishanth. B Vs State of Karnataka by

Vajramani a Vs the State of Karnataka

C v Raghavendra Vs State by