Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 492 (KAR)

Pavan P. Bannikodu v. State of Karnataka

2011-04-28

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

body2011
Judgment : 1. In this petition filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C., the petitioner who has been arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.12/2011 of Harihara Rural Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506, 427, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC has sought for relief of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest by the said police in respect of the aforesaid case. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that at this stage, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he is guilty of any of the acts alleged and that even according to the wound certificate issued by the hospital in respect of the alleged victims, none of them have suffered any grievous injuries on any vital part of the body, therefore, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 307, IPC along with other offences. It is the contention of the petitioner that the other accused persons have already been granted the relief of anticipatory bail and that the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of other accused persons, therefore, on the principles of parity, he is entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. 3. The petition is opposed by the respondent-State. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for both parties. 5. According to the case of the prosecution on 29.01.2011 at about 9.30 p.m., the petitioner along with other accused numbering about 15 to 20, forming themselves into unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons attempted to commit murder and thus, they have committed and aforestated offences. It is not in serious dispute that some of the persons, who have been arrayed as accused in the case, against whom similar allegations are made, have already been granted the relief of anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. 6. Having regard to the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of other accused persons. Therefore, I find no reasons to refuse the relief of anticipatory bail to this petitioner, while such relief has been granted to other similarly placed persons. 7. In view of the same, petition is allowed. Having regard to the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of other accused persons. Therefore, I find no reasons to refuse the relief of anticipatory bail to this petitioner, while such relief has been granted to other similarly placed persons. 7. In view of the same, petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioner herein on bail, in the event of his arrest in Crime No.12/2011 of Harihara Rural Police Station subject to his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 1) Petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 2) Petitioner, for the purpose of investigation, shall appear before the Investigating Officer, whenever called upon to do so co-operate, in the investigation. Petition allowed.