Dismissed

Arjuna D a v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2024CRL.P/6162/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court granted the prayer in the negative due to the serious nature of the offences, the specific injury to the informant, and the requirement to seize the weapon used in the commission of the crime.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Arjuna D a Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25644 CRL.P No. 6162 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6162 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ARJUNA D.A., S/O ARUNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O DODDAMAGARAVALLI VILLAGE, ALDUR POST,

¶9

CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 101

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ALDUR POLICE STATION CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ORDER FOR THE RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.71/2024 THE CASE IS REGISTERED BY ALDUR POLICE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 504,506,341,324,307 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn.) AND JMFC COURT AT CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:25644 CRL.P No. 6162 of 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner-sole accused is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.71/2024 of Aldur Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 341, 324, 307 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant – D.S.Tejes. 2. Heard Sri Girish B.Baladare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.P.Yashodha, 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 petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶24

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the

¶25

following:

¶26

R E A S O N S

¶27

Petitioner being the sole accused is seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail on the apprehension of being arrested. The

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25644 CRL.P No. 6162 of 2024

¶29

statement of the injured was recorded and FIR was registered for the above said offences. The injured has specifically stated that it was the petitioner who assaulted him with a sickle and caused injuries. The wound certificate discloses that the injured sustained laceration measuring 8 x 1 cm., on the frontal region of the scalp. Even though the injury is simple in nature, it is on the vital part of the body. More over, the sickle used in commission of the offence is to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner. Considering the nature and the seriousness of offence and also requirement of the petitioner for seizure of the weapon used in commission of the offence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of Anticipatory Bail.

¶30

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petition is dismissed.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

ND/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Arjuna D a v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjuna D a 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

Sri. Dhyaneshwara Vs the State of Karantaka

Muniya v Vs State of Karnataka

Saravanan Vs State by Puttenahalli Police Station

Amar Singh Dhami Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Soma @ Somashekhar Vs State of Karnataka

Sohail Patel @ Sohail Vs State of Karnataka