Allowed

Puneeth Kumar. S v. State by Ijoor Ps

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2024CRL.P/5483/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, accused Nos. 2 to 4 in Crime No. 16/2024 registered under Sections 307/149 IPC after a viral video showed armed persons chasing another, sought regular bail. No injuries or assault occurred; similarly placed accused Nos. 1 and 7 were earlier granted bail. The court granted bail on parity with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail in Crime No. 16/2024 on Rs. 2,00,000 bond each with two sureties, subject to conditions.

Puneeth Kumar. S Vs State by Ijoor Ps — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:22381 CRL.P No. 5483 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5483 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PUNEETH KUMAR .S. S/O. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O. PADARAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, HARISANDRA, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 159.

¶8

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: high court of karnataka

¶9

NIKHIL .M. S/O. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O. MACHANAHALLI, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 125.

¶10

RAJAN .P. S/O. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O. NO.21, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, TIMMENAHALLI, GOVINDRAJANAGARA, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE - 560 040.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. SUNIL .S. NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY IJOOR PS RAMANAGARA - 562 159, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:22381 CRL.P No. 5483 of 2024

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE CR.NO.16/2024 REGISTERED IN IJOOR POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 R/W 149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJM COURT, RAMANAGARA.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioners - accused Nos. 2 to 4 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 16/2024 of Ijoor Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM Court, Ramanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Palanetha Head Constable.

¶20

Heard Sri. Sunil S Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:22381 CRL.P No. 5483 of 2024

¶22

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶23

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶24

“Whether the petitioners are entitled

¶25

for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶26

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

¶27

R E A S O N S

¶28

The petitioners arrayed as accused Nos. 2 to 4 are

¶29

seeking grant of bail. They were apprehended on 06.03.2024 and since then, they are in judicial custody. The FIR came to be registered after a video where three persons with deadly weapons were found chasing another person, has gone viral. It is stated that nobody sustained any injury and there was no assault. Accused Nos.1 and 7 have approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.4282/2024 and the same came to be allowed vide order dated 31.05.2024. Similar allegations are made against the present petitioners as well. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of parity with that of

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:22381 CRL.P No. 5483 of 2024

¶31

accused Nos.1 and 7. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶32

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶33

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed.

¶36

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 16/2024 of Ijoor Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶37

a). The petitioners shall not commit similar offences.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:22381 CRL.P No. 5483 of 2024

¶41

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.

¶42

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 petitioners on bail.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

SPV

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Puneeth Kumar. S v. State by Ijoor Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puneeth Kumar. S v. State by Ijoor Ps

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

Manjeshkumar R @ Manjesh @ Avalahalli Manja Vs the State

Subramanian Palani Velan Vs the Superintendent of Central Tax (Gst)

Sri Mehaboob Khan @ Anu Malik Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Yaseen Pasha Vs the State by

Harisha Vs the State by Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station

Keerthy Raj Vs State of Karnataka