Partly allowed

Mr. Joseph Lawrence Mascarenhas v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2024CRL.P/6156/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka partially allowed the plea for anticipatory bail. It dismissed the plea of the petitioner who was the alleged primary perpetrator and extravagant in injuries to the informant, but granted it to another petitioner on parity principles, subject to strict conditions including financial bond and protection of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed for Petitioner No.1/Accused No.4 subject to a bond of Rs. 2,00,000, appearance before Investigating Officer within 15 days, and conditions against committing further offences

Mr. Joseph Lawrence Mascarenhas Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:25825 CRL.P No. 6156 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6156 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. JOSEPH LAWRENCE MASCARENHAS S/O MARTIN LOUIS MASCARENHAS, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O #12/374(2), KAPU ROAD, SHIRVA, UDUPI - 574 116.

¶9

MR. ALDIN SEQUEIRA, S/O ALWYN TIMOTHY SEQUEIRA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT #8-8/4(2), FAMILY NEST, THIMAPPA HEGDE ROAD, KATLA, SURATHKAL, MANGALURU - 575 011.

¶10

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

¶11

(BY SRI. DINESHKUMAR RAO .K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SURATHKAL POLICE STATION, MANGALURU - 575 011. (REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

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

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.60/2024 OF SURATHKAL POLICE STATION, MANGALURU, PENIDNG ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C. - II COURT, MANGALURU (REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324, 504, 506, 307, 342 R/W 34 OF IPC).

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25825 CRL.P No. 6156 of 2024

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 4 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.60/2024 of Surathkal Police Station, pending on the file of the learned JMFC II Court, Mangaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506, 307 and 342 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Alwin Timothy Sequeira.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25825 CRL.P No. 6156 of 2024

¶25

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶26

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

¶27

R E A S O N S

¶28

Petitioners being accused Nos.4 and 1 respectively are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail on the apprehension of being arrested. The informant is the husband of accused No.2 and father of accused No.1. It is the specific contention of the informant that on 13.05.2024, at 9.30 am, accused No.1 illegally trespassed into the house, abused him in filthy language and assaulted with rod with an intention to cause his death. In the meantime, accused Nos.3 and 4 have also came inside the house and assaulted the informant with a club, causing injuries. The injured - informant was admitted to the hospital on 16.05.2024 and on the same day, FIR came to be registered after recording his statement. The injured was discharged from the hospital on 20.05.2024. The wound certificate discloses that the injured has sustained as many as fourteen injuries, out of which, two are grievous in nature i.e.,

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25825 CRL.P No. 6156 of 2024

¶30

fracture of lower and upper alna. The injuries are either contusion or abrasion which corresponds with the allegation made in the first information.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they are falsely implicated in the matter as accused No.2 had filed the complaint against the informant on 07.05.2024 which was registered in Cr.No.55/2024 of Suratkal police station. The said contention cannot be accepted at this stage. Moreover, the present petition is under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am of the opinion that petitioner No.2/accused No.1 is not entitled for grant of bail since he is said to be the assailant with Iron rod and he is the author of the injuries sustained.

¶32

Petitioner No.1 is accused No.4. The allegation

¶33

against him is that he assaulted with rod. Similar allegations were made against accused No.3, who was already granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that petitioner No.1/ accused No.4 is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail on principles of parity subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution. Whereas, petitioner No.2/accused No.1 is not entitled for grant of

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25825 CRL.P No. 6156 of 2024

¶35

anticipatory bail, looking into the overt act alleged against him

¶36

and also his relationship with the informant.

¶37

Accordingly, I answer the above point 'partly in the

¶38

affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition filed by petitioner No.2/accused No.1 is dismissed .

¶41

The petition filed by petitioner No.1/accused No.4 is allowed .

¶42

Petitioner - Accused No.4 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 60/2024 of Surathkal Police Station.

¶43

Petitioner - Accused No.4 is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶44

a. Petitioner - Accused No.4 shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶45

b. Petitioner - Accused No.4 shall not commit similar offences;

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:25825 CRL.P No. 6156 of 2024

¶47

c. Petitioner - Accused No.4 shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and

¶48

d. Petitioner - Accused No.4 shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶49

On furnishing the sureties by the Petitioner - Accused No.4, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by him. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Mr. Joseph Lawrence Mascarenhas v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Joseph Lawrence Mascarenhas 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

Malike Saba Vs State of Karnataka

Devaraja P M Vs State of Karnataka

Odesh Raj Urs Vs State of Karnataka

Sathisha B Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Syed Shahid Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ahmed Sharief Vs State of Karnataka