Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 425 (KAR)

Manjunath 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. 2, 3, 5 and 6 before the trial Court in the following circumstances: It transpires that the complainant, one Bhimappa alleged that the accused had committed offences punishable under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered as Crime No. 35/2012. It transpires that there was a quarrel between one Sangondeppa Gaddanakeri and Parasappa, accused No. 5, in respect of certain building stones and both had filed cases against each other. At that point of time, the complainant had stood surety to Gaddanakeri and his brothers, as a result of which, accused No. 5 and his brothers were upset and angry with the complainant and they had warned the complainant that they would not spare him as he stood surety for their enemies. As a result of which, on 26.2.2012, when the complainant, his wife and his son-in-law were sleeping on the terrace of their house, at about 1 a.m., the accused had descended on the complainant’s house, armed with stones and clubs and they had assaulted the complainant and his family, who had suffered grievous injuries. The causing of particular injuries have been attributed to particular accused in the complaint. And on the cries of the complainant and his family for help, the neighbours had intervened and stopped further injuries being caused. It is on that basis that a case has been instituted against the petitioners and others. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that accused Nos. 1 and 4 have been enlarged on bail and, therefore, by a parity of reasoning, the petitioners are entitled to bail as well, since accused No. 1 was the prime accused and there is no reason as to why the petitioners ought not to be enlarged on bail since the injured have now recovered and are safe and notwithstanding the allegations, the same can be established only at a full-fledged trial and hence, seeks grant of bail. The Court below has rejected the bail application only on the footing that the injuries are grievous in nature and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to bail. The learned counsel would submit that the Court below has not taken into account the circumstance that accused Nos. 1 and 4 have been enlarged on bail. 4. The Court below has rejected the bail application only on the footing that the injuries are grievous in nature and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to bail. The learned counsel would submit that the Court below has not taken into account the circumstance that accused Nos. 1 and 4 have been enlarged on bail. 4. The learned Government Pleader, however, would oppose the petition and would submit that the petitioners having approached the Circuit Bench, Dharwad earlier, and not having prosecuted the petition, are disentitled to file the present petition. Further, the enlargement of accused No. 4 was on account of his age and not for any other special reason and, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim parity of reasoning in seeking anticipatory bail. 5. While the learned Counsel for the petitioners would justify the circumstance by contending that though a petition had been filed earlier before the Circuit Bench, Dharwad, the prayer in the said petition was restricted to two petitioners and not insofar as the present petitioners were concerned, since they had not instructed the counsel in that regard and, therefore, the present petition. 6. Given the circumstance that the overt acts alleged against each of the petitioners can be established only at a full-fledged trial and given the further circumstance that though the injuries were grievous in nature, the petitioners have recovered from their injuries and having regard to the incident, the case of the petitioners can be considered for enlargement on bail on terms and conditions, by a parity of reasoning, since this Court has already granted bail insofar as accused Nos. 1 and 4 are concerned. 7. 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. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), each with two solvent sureties for a like sum on their behalf. The petitioners shall not indulge in any such violence against the complainant and his family and provoke them in any manner. 8. The petitioners shall make themselves available to the investigating authorities till the completion of the investigation. The petitioners shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court, without the leave of the Court. They shall not seek to influence the prosecution witnesses. 9. The petition stands allowed.