Allowed

Shashikumar @ Jinke v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Oct 2022CRL.P/9930/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka enlarged the petitioner, accused No.6, on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under various sections of the IPC. The court relied on parity with previous bail grants and found no specific allegation of an overt act against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed on bail in Crime No.208/2022 via personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties and specific conditions.

Shashikumar @ Jinke Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9930 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHASHIKUMAR @ JINKE S/O KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT. GOOLIKOPLU VILLAGE BASARALU HOBALI MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶9

….PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NAGENDRA .B, ADVOCATE )

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA RURAL POLICE STATION REP: BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.208/2022(C.C.NO.1214/2022)OF MANDYA RURAL P.S., MANDYA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 323, 307, 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC, MANDYA.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.6 under

¶20

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No.208/2022 (CC No.1214/2022) of Mandya Rural Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 323 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of JMFC Court, Mandya.

¶21

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that there was an accident in the Bengaluru highway and at that time some persons were trying to steal the belongings of the injured. At that time, the complainant and others have obstructed the said accused persons. It is alleged that in the said background accused persons came to the village of injured Shankaregowda on the same day with deadly weapons and enquired regarding the earlier obstruction by them during the accident. Then when they were quarrelling with Cws.1 and

¶22

¶23

4, Cw.2 came there and enquired regarding quarrel and at

¶24

that time, all the accused in furtherance of common intention assaulted the injured as well as the complainant and especially accused Nos.1 and 2 have assaulted them by machete and dragger. The injured admitted to the hospital and in this regard a complaint came to be filed. The petitioner-accused No.6 was apprehended and was produced before the learned magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody. He has approached the learned sessions judge and his bail petition came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶25

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

¶26

counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

¶28

that no overt-act has been alleged against the present petitioner-accused No.6 except recording his presence and the statement of eye-witness recorded under Section 164 of

¶29

¶30

Cr.P.C. by the magistrate disclose that the presence of the present petitioner was no way referred. He would also contend that accused Nos.2 and 5 have been granted bail by this Court and hence, on the ground of parity, he is seeking for admitting him on bail.

¶31

Per contra, the learned HCGP would oppose the bail petition contending that the petitioner is a habitual offender involved in two cases. In case he is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of he tampering the prosecution witnesses and jumping on bail and sought for rejection of petition.

¶32

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that there was no alleged motive as against present petitioner or other accused. The motive is shown to be the accident dated 28.06.2022 and it is alleged that the accused persons have attempted to steal the belongings to the injured who met with an accident and at that time the complainant and others prevented them. It is alleged

¶33

¶34

that in this background the accused persons came to the village and assaulted Cw.2 with deadly weapons and with their hands. The allegations of the prosecution disclose that weapons were recovered from the custody of accused Nos.1 and 2. The present petitioner is alleged to be accused No.6 and allegations made against him is that he assaulted by hands. Further the injury certificate is made available which disclose that the complainant suffered only simple injuries. Apart from that the accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 have been granted bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.8825/2022 c/w Crl.P.No.8850/2022 & Crl.P.No.7727/2022. The petitioner is also standing on the same footing and on the ground of parity he is also entitled for bail.

¶35

The learned HCGP would contend that ground of parity cannot be made applicable since the petitioner is involved in other two offences and he is habitual offender. But that was the only allegations and the charges alleged in the said cases are required to be established. Mere presence of

¶36

¶37

the petitioner does not make him liable for the alleged act and looking to these facts and circumstances, the petition needs to

¶38

be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition is allowed . The petitioner/Accused No. 4 is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.208/2022 (CC No.1214/2022) of Mandya Rural Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 323 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of JMFC Court, Mandya, on his executing a 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 trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶41

(i) He shall not indulge in similar offences strictly.

¶42

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

¶43

(iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the Trial Court.

¶44

¶45

(iv) He shall regularly attend the court and cooperate for early disposal of the case unless he is exempted by a Specific order.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

NS CT:NR

Shashikumar @ Jinke v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikumar @ Jinke 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

Jagadeesha Vs H P Manjegowda

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri. Jagadeesha

Nagesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh S Vs State of Karnataka

Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Shek Ahammed Vs State by Doddapete Police Station