Allowed

Mahendra. C. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024CRL.P/8768/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Eleven accused not named in the FIR but specifically charge-sheeted with overt-acts similar to co-accused already enlarged on bail sought anticipatory bail in a group assault case; the court granted parity-based anticipatory bail with conditions including bonds of Rs.2,00,000 each and directions to appear before the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to all eleven petitioners in the event of arrest, on bonds of Rs.2,00,000 each with two sureties each, subject to stated conditions.

Mahendra. C. Vs State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37540 CRL.P No. 8768 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8768 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MAHENDRA. C.

¶9

S/O CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT V.C. HOSURA VILLAGE, VENKATAYYANACHATRA CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 313.

¶10

RANGARAMU S/O. HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, CHIKKAHOSABEEDI, RAMASAMUDRA, CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN DISTRICT - 571 313.

¶11

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka

¶12

MANJU H.N. S/O NAGANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NO.202, NEW EXTENSION, 4^TH BLOCK, HARADANAHALLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 313

¶13

UMAPATHI

¶14

S/O MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O #14/153, AMBEDKAR STREET, CHAMRAJNAGAR TOWN - 571 313

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:37540 CRL.P No. 8768 of 2024

¶17

RAVI .G. S/O GOVINDANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NAYAKARA BEEDI, NEW EXTENSION HARADANAHALLI CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313

¶18

DORERAJU S/O MANIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, DODDARAYAPETE VILLAGE AND POST, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313

¶19

RAJESH K.M. S/O MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, AMBEDKAR BEEDI, KUDERU VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313

¶20

D. MAHADEVA, S/O DODDABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, AMBEDKAR BEEDI, NAGAVALLI VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313

¶21

KUMAR .M. S/O S.K. MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WARD NO.1, AMBEDKAR BEEDI SOMVARAPETE, CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN - 571 313

¶22

MAHESHA .N.

¶23

S/O NARAYANASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WARD NO.24, RAGHAVENDRA TALKIES ROAD, CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN - 571 313

¶24

S. ADARSHKUMAR, S/O. R. SHIVANNA,

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37540 CRL.P No. 8768 of 2024

¶26

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, YARAGAMBALLI VILLAGE, YALANDUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST - 571 313

¶27

…PETITIONERS

¶28

(BY SMT. MRUDULA .V., FOR SRI. VINAY K.S., ADVOCATES)

¶29

AND:

¶30

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CHAMARAJANAGAR RURAL POLICE STATION HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

¶31

…RESPONDENT

¶32

(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)

¶33

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.52/2023 IN C.C.NO.1941/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 341, 504, 353, 427, 109, 354(A), 323, 355, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) J.M.F.C COURT CHAMARAJANAGAR.

¶34

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

The petitioners-accused Nos.13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.52/2023 of Chamarajanagar Rural

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37540 CRL.P No. 8768 of 2024

¶39

Police Station, pending in C.C.No.1941/2023 on the file of the learned Prl.Civil Judge & JMFC (Jr.Dn.), Chamarajanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 504, 353, 427, 109, 354(A), 323, 355, 506 R/W Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant G.M.Sanjeev.

¶40

Heard Smt. Mrudula.V for Sri. Vinay K.S., learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. N.Anitha Girish, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

following:

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37540 CRL.P No. 8768 of 2024

¶46

R E A S O N S

¶47

Petitioners being accused Nos.13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33 and 34 are seeking grant of anticipatory bail on the apprehension of being arrested.

¶48

FIR came to be registered against accused No.1 and 60 to 80 others on the basis of the first information filed by the informant. It is pertinent to note that accused No.1 in the present case filed the first information and the FIR in Cr.No.51/2023 came to be registered against the accused mentioned therein. In the mean time, the present FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.52/2023.

¶49

It is the contention of the prosecution that there was quarrel between two administrative personal in Chamaraja Nagar Medical College. Accused No.30 picked up quarrel with CW1 and later, accused No.1 warned CW1. However, CW1 went along with his wife in the car to proceed towards Bengaluru. It is alleged that accused Nos.2 to 34 waylaid the car and committed the offence. Admittedly, these petitioners were not named in the FIR. But while filing the charge sheet they were specifically named with specific overt-act. The overt-act alleged against accused Nos.3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:37540 CRL.P No. 8768 of 2024

¶51

¶52

21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34 are similar. The allegations against accused Nos.6, 7 and 11 is that they have assaulted CW1 with their hands. Admittedly, accused No.1 is already enlarged on bail. Accused No.5, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 31 were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also not in dispute that accused Nos.3, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 12 were granted bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.6163/2024 vide order dated 23.07.2024. When similar overt-act is alleged against the present petitioners, I do not find any reason to deny the benefit of parity with the coaccused. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioners are required for interrogation or that they are having criminal antecedents. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶53

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

¶54

ORDER

¶55

The petition is allowed.

¶56

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37540 CRL.P No. 8768 of 2024

¶57

The petitioners-accused Nos.13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34 are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.52/2023 of Chamarajanagar Rural Police Station.

¶58

The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on their appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge them on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶59

a. The petitioners shall furnish 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 Investigating Officer;

¶60

b. The petitioners shall not commit similar offences;

¶61

c. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and

¶62

d. The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶63

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioners, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:37540 CRL.P No. 8768 of 2024

¶65

¶66

address and authenticity of the documents furnished by them. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to

¶67

accept the sureties within a reasonable time.

¶68

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶69

BH List No.: 3 Sl No.: 7

Mahendra. C. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra. C. 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

Mrs Komala S P Vs Mrs Asha L @ Asha Chethan Kumar

Subramanya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Umesh Chikkamagaluru Puttaswamy Gowda Vs State by Sadashivanagar

Somashekar @ Prashanth Vs State of Karnataka

Abubakar Qureshi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahesh H N Vs State of Karnataka