Allowed

Prashanth v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2024CRL.P/5479/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by two accused charged with assaulting an informant head constable with stones, including attempt to murder. Injured suffered five simple injuries and was discharged; no criminal antecedents or need for custodial interrogation shown. Court granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail on bond of Rs.2,00,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions.

Prashanth Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:22622 CRL.P No. 5479 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5479 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PRASHANTH S/O. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT SRIRAMA BLOCK, BHOVI COLONY, K.R. NAGAR TOWN, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 602.

¶8

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: high court of karnataka

¶9

PRASHANTH K.S. @ CHIDU S/O. SWAMYNAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT KANUGANAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 602.

¶10

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY K.R. NAGARA POLICE, MYSORE DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI .K., HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.107/2024 OF K.R. NAGAR P.S., MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 353, 307, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C K.R.NAGAR.

¶17

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:22622 CRL.P No. 5479 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.107/2024 of K.R.Nagar Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, K.R.Nagar registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 307 and 504 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Santhosha N.

¶21

Heard Sri.Pratheep K.C., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶22

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶23

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:22622 CRL.P No. 5479 of 2024

¶25

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶26

R E A S O N S

¶27

Petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 are seeking grant of bail. They were apprehended on 03.04.2024 and since then they are in judicial custody. The informant being the head constable filed the first information making specific allegations against each of the accused. It is alleged that these petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 have assaulted the injured with stones, with an intention to cause his death. The copy of the wound certificate produced for perusal of the Court discloses that the injured has sustained as many as 5 simple injuries and has already discharged from the hospital. Even though the allegations are serious in nature, it is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioners are required for custodial interrogation or that they are having any criminal antecedents. Under such circumstances, the detention of the petitioners in custody would amount to pretrial punishment. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:22622 CRL.P No. 5479 of 2024

¶29

bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶30

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶31

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petition is allowed.

¶34

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.107/2024 of K.R.Nagar Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

a). The petitioners shall not commit similar offences.

¶36

b). The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶37

c). The petitioners shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶38

If in case, the petitioners violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:22622 CRL.P No. 5479 of 2024

¶40

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioners, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioners and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶41

Sd/- JUDGE

¶42

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Prashanth v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashanth 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

Mr Manjunath P Vs State by Karnataka by

Lakshmana S/O Devara Thimmaiah, Vs the State by Amruthur Police Station

Srinivasa M S/O Muniswamy Vs the State by Kadugodi P S

Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka by Halaguru Police Station

H.S Halaswamy @ Haleshi Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Haris Fuzail Vs State of Karnataka