Allowed

Rahul. R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2024CRL.P/6106/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.1, a student in judicial custody for offences including Section 307 IPC after an assault causing mandible fracture, sought regular bail. The court found he was not required for further investigation and granted bail with conditions and a bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in Crime No.126/2024 on Rs.2,00,000 bond with two like sureties, subject to stated conditions.

Rahul. R Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:25228 CRL.P No. 6106 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6106 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka

¶9

RAHUL. R S/O RAGHUNANDAN .N. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS OCC: STUDENT R/AT #1675/113, 2^ND CROSS, NEAR POLICE STATION, RAJESHWARI BADAVANE, NITTUVALLI DAVANAGERE - 577 004 (NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) …PETITIONER (BY SMT. POOJA KATTIMANI, FOR SRI. DINESHKUMAR RAO .K., ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDYANAGARA POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE - 577 004, (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001) (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI .K., HCGP)

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.126/2024 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL (SR.DN.) AND CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, DAVANAGERE (REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 307, 504 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC).

¶14

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

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25228 CRL.P No. 6106 of 2024

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.126/2024 of Davanagere Police Station, pending on the file of the learned I Additional (Sr.Dn.) Civil Judge and JMFC Court, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 504 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Gurubasavaraj M.B.

¶18

Heard Smt.Pooja Kattimani, learned counsel for Sri.Dinesh Kumar Rao.K, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rahul Rai.K, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:25228 CRL.P No. 6106 of 2024

¶23

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

¶24

R E A S O N S

¶25

The petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 27.05.2024 and since then he is in judicial custody. The father of the injured lodged first information making specific allegation against the present petitioner and two unknown persons.

¶26

It is stated that the petitioner had picked up quarrel with the injured for silly reasons and hit him on his face with the fist. As a result of which, the injured sustained fracture of mandible. The investigation is still in progress. However, it is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigating. It is pertinent to note that both the petitioner and the injured are students. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25228 CRL.P No. 6106 of 2024

¶28

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶29

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petition is allowed.

¶32

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.126/2024 of Davanagere Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with

¶33

two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶34

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as

¶38

stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25228 CRL.P No. 6106 of 2024

¶40

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, 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 petitioner 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.: 31

Rahul. R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul. R 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

Dharshan S/O Late Venkatesha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mariyappa @ Marappa S/O Gurupad Vs State of Karnataka by

Vishvanath Vs State of Karnataka

Dhurgappa Bhramappa Tamirikoppa Vs State of Karnataka by

Kalmesh Y Agasimani Vs State of Karnataka by Psi

Sri Keshava Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka