Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 423 (KAR)

Sukhdev Tayappa Ganiger v. State of Karnataka

2012-05-04

ANAND BYRAREDDY

body2012
ORDER ANAND BYRAREDDY, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 9 in Crime No. 26/2012. It is alleged by one Vittal Banti, the complainant that the complainant and his elder brother own lands near Canal No. 4 within the limits of Terdal village and they reside alongwith their families. They cultivate their lands using the canal water. On 10.3.2012, at about 6 p.m., it transpired that there was an altercation between the complainant and accused No. 2 to accused No. 10 in respect of the usage of the canal water and thereafter, at about 8 p.m., the accused attacked the complainant in his house with dangerous weapons. On hearing his cries for help, the elder brother and other relatives of the complainant had rescued the complainant, who in turn, were also assaulted. Thereafter, other people of the area intervened and pacified the parties. As a result of the said altercation between the accused and the complainant and his relatives and the complainant having suffered a head injury, a case had been registered against the petitioners. The petitioners, in turn, have lodged a counter case claiming that they have suffered injuries by attack by the complainant and his party, who are indeed aggressors in Crime No. 27/2012. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners having approached the Court below seeking anticipatory bail, the same has been rejected on the ground that the complainant has suffered a grievous injury, which would attract the punishment of life imprisonment and, therefore, since the matter is under investigation, the petitioners were not entitled to be enlarged on bail. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible to say as to who was the aggressor and who was the victim though the complainant in the complaint against the petitioners may have suffered a serious injury. The petitioners also having suffered injuries as a result of the physical attack on each other, therefore, it is not possible to hold that the petitioners are the only aggressors and that the complainant and his party were not the aggressors. The petitioners also having suffered injuries as a result of the physical attack on each other, therefore, it is not possible to hold that the petitioners are the only aggressors and that the complainant and his party were not the aggressors. The learned Counsel would contend, that the complainant has suffered a serious injury, which does not render the complainant and his group any less the aggressors and hence, seeks anticipatory bail on the footing that the complainant and his party, who are the accused in the case filed by the petitioners, have been enlarged on bail and by a parity of reasoning, seeks the same relief. 4. The learned Government Pleader would seek to oppose the petition on the ground that the trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that the matter is under investigation and the complainant has suffered a grievous injury attracting the punishment of life imprisonment. 5. Though the complainant has suffered a grievous injury, at this point of time, it cannot he ascertained as to who has caused any injury with any certainty. Though the allegation is made against the accused Nos. 2 to 10, the matter could be established only after a full-fledged trial. Accordingly, the petitioners have made out a case for enlargement on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest. 6. The petition is allowed. The petitioners, in the event of their arrest, shall be enlarged on bail on each of them furnishing a self bond in a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties for a like sum. The petitioners shall not indulge in any further physical or verbal abuse to the complainant and his party. The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation till the completion of the investigation. The petitioners shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below without the leave of the Court. They shall not seek to influence the prosecution witnesses in any manner.