Allowed

Sri. Janardhan. P @ Janni v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2022CRL.P/9681/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of offences under IPC and Arms Act. The court found allegations of severe injury exaggerated as the injured party suffered no injuries, while grounds for bail were met.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed on anticipatory bail on executing personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety and complying with conditions.

Sri. Janardhan. P @ Janni Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9681/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. JANARDHAN .P @ JANNI 35 YEARS S/O. PRAKASHA JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTTE TALUK, KODIHALLI, NADUVATHI VILLAGE BANGALORE RURAL, KARNATAKA - 560067.

¶8

SRI. NAVEEN K.S. @ KADAVI 37 YEARS S/O. SAMPANGI JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTTE TALUK, KODIHALLI, NADUVATHI VILLAGE BANGALORE RURAL, KARNATAKA - 560067.

¶9

SRI. NAVEEN .K @ YADAV 40 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAPPA JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTTE TALUK, KODIHALLI, NADUVATHI VILLAGE BANGALORE RURAL, KARNATAKA - 560067

¶10

….PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. MURTHY D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANDEEP C.T., ADVOCATE)

CRL.P.NO.9681/2022

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THIRUMALLASHETTIHALLI P.S. THIRUMALASHETTIHALLI CIRCLE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT REP: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

...RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶18

¶19

THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.112/2022 REGISTERED BY THIRUMALASHEETAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 427, 120B, 147, 148, 149, 307 OF IPC AND SECTION 25, 26, 27 OF ARMS ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND J.M.F.C., HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for enlarging them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.112/2022 of Thirumallashettihalli Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 427 and 120B of IPC and also under Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶23

¶24

CRL.P.NO.9681/2022

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶26

HCGP for respondent – State. Perused the records.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant

¶28

Sunitha has lodged a complaint on 22.07.2022 alleging that at about 2.30 p.m., to 3.00 p.m., one K. Rajesh has informed her husband on phone stating that the present petitioners are trying to remove the compound and they trespassed on the land and further it is asserted that he was also assaulted.

¶29

Then husband of the complainant went near the land and she along with her relatives and villagers visited the land. It is alleged that at that time, the petitioners tried to kill her husband Sunil and brother-in-law, Rajesh by firing with the pistol/gun and her husband sustained bullet injury on his leg. It is also alleged that accused No.2 had also fired bullets towards K.Sunil and Rajesh with an intention to cause their deaths, and accused No.3 assaulted her husband as well as

¶30

Rajesh with an iron rod. Then the persons who were present at the spot pacified the matter and the injured were shifted to

¶31

¶32

CRL.P.NO.9681/2022

¶33

the hospital. As such, the complainant has lodged a complaint. On the basis of the complaint, the crime was registered and an FIR came to be issued.

¶34

Apprehending the arrest, the petitioners have approached the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge had rejected their anticipatory bail petition. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶35

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that there is some dispute between the husband of the complainant / injured person and the present petitioners regarding land bounary. The allegations of the complaint discloses that the petitioners have fired bullets and her husband suffered bullet injury on his leg. It is also alleged that petitioner No.2 had also fired towards her husband Sunil and Rajesh and further it is alleged that they were assaulted by the iron rod. However, the report submitted by the Investigating Officer clearly discloses that neither the

¶36

¶37

CRL.P.NO.9681/2022

¶38

complainant nor other witnesses have suffered any injuries in alleged incident. In that view of the matter, it is evident that the allegations made regarding firing bullets causing bullet injury and assaulting with an iron rod appears to be false statement.

¶39

Apart from that it is also evident from the records that the injured who is the husband of the complainant and others were prosecuted for similar offences in respect of a complaint in Crime No.111/2022 for the similar offences. The said offences have also been said to have taken place on the same day, time and place. Hence, it appears that there was some quarrel between the petitioners and the husband of the complainant regarding the dispute pertaining to the land and the complaint and cross complaint were filed. However, the allegations made in the present complaint disclose that it is exaggerated.

¶40

¶41

CRL.P.NO.9681/2022

¶42

Apart from that, in the other case in Crime

¶43

No.111/2022 wherein petitioner No.1 is the complainant, along with present petitioner No.2, has produced the guns which were seized and they have also produced copies of the gun licence. Hence, the allegations regarding incorporating

¶44

the Arms Act against the present petitioners hold no water. The husband of the complainant and other witnesses have not at all suffered any injuries.

¶45

Learned HCGP would contend that petitioner No.1 is involved in five cases, while petitioner No.2 is involved in three cases, but merely because they are involved in other cases is not a ground to reject the present bail petition since the allegations made in the present petition are required to be substantiated independently. But the records disclose that the entire incident was exaggerated and the complainant was concealing certain material aspects.

¶46

¶47

CRL.P.NO.9681/2022

¶48

9. Looking to these facts and circumstances, I do not

¶49

find any impediment for admitting the petitioners on bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The petition is allowed . The petitioners/accused are directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.112/2022 of Thirumallashettihalli Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 427 and 120B of IPC and also under Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC Court, Hosakote, Bangalore Rural District on each of them executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:

¶52

i) Petitioners shall surrender themselves before the concerned SHO within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

¶53

¶54

CRL.P.NO.9681/2022

¶55

order and in the event of surrender, the Investigating Officer/SHO shall release them on bail as directed.

¶56

ii) TheY shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶57

iii) They shall not indulge in any similar offences.

¶58

iv) They shall regularly appear before the Court unless they are exempted by specific order and shall co-operate in speedy disposal of the matter.

¶59

v) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

¶60

vi) They shall mark attendance before the Investigating Officer/SHO on every 1st and 15th of each month until final reported is submitted.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

GJM

Sri. Janardhan. P @ Janni v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Janardhan. P @ Janni 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

Sri. S H Kulkarni Vs the Divisional Controller

Aboobakkar Siddique. B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Swamy @ Nagendra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunath @ Mapilai Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rangantha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka