Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 914 (KAR)

Laxman Adappa v. State

2016-12-01

B.A.PATIL

body2016
ORDER : B.A. Patil, J. The present petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.88/2016 of Hunasagi Police Station, Dist. Yadgir for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.08.2016 at about 4.30 p.m., complainant Yallappa and his brother Ashok objected the accused persons for making dirt of the temple premises by the kids of the accused/petitioner No.1. In that backdrop, petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 7 by constituting an unlawful assembly by holding deadly weapons came and abused the complainant and his brother in filthy language and the petitioner/Accused No. 1 tried to assault the complainant on his head with stick, since complainant tried to escape, the hit missed and hit on the right hand of the complainant and caused grievous injury. It is further alleged that the petitioners have assaulted the complainant and his brother with hands, stones and caused grievous injuries and also gave a life threat to the complainant and his brother. It is further alleged that when the complainant and his brother ran into their house and locked the door to escape from the clutches of the accused the petitioners trespassed into their house by breaking the main door and there also they dragged the complainant and his brother and assaulted by giving threat to their lives and thereby have committed alleged offences. 3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by said Yallappa, a case was registered against the accused/petitioners. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence. Earlier to the present case, the complainant and other accused persons assaulted the petitioners. In that context, they also filed a case in Crime No.87/2016. As a counter blast, the present complaint has been filed. It is further contended that the petitioners are apprehending their arrest by the police and if they are arrested, they will be detained and they will be tortured. They are ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court and to face the trial. 6. As a counter blast, the present complaint has been filed. It is further contended that the petitioners are apprehending their arrest by the police and if they are arrested, they will be detained and they will be tortured. They are ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court and to face the trial. 6. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued contending that the accused persons have committed the heinous offence of Section 307 of IPC. The other accused persons in Crime No.87/2016 have already been absconded and they will not be available for the purpose of investigation and if these accused persons are enlarged on bail, they may abscond and they may not be available for the trial and there is likelihood of tampering with the prosecution witnesses. On these grounds, he prays for rejecting the bail application. 7. I have gone through the contents of the petition, the copy of the FIR, complaint and the order of the trial Court. 8. Perusing the averments of the complaint : and the copy of the FIR in Crime No.87/2016, it reveals that there are case and a counter case by the present petitioners/accused as well as the complainant. The offence, with which the accused persons have been alleged, except Section 307 of IPC, the other offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even though Section 307 of IPC is involved in this case, but when this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the injury certificate in respect of the injured, he submitted that he has received the information from the Hunasagi Police Station that the said complainant and other injured persons are absconding and they were not available and that there is no material to show that they have taken the treatment and they are still under the treatment. In that backdrop, I feel that the complainant and other persons are out of danger and are not taking any treatment in any hospital. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, that too when there is a case and counter case, I feel that if by imposing some stringent conditions if petitioners/accused are enlarged on anticipatory bail, it will meet the ends of justice. Hence, petitioners are directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the following order is made : The petition is allowed. Hence, petitioners are directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the following order is made : The petition is allowed. The respondent-Police are hereby directed to release the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 7 on bail, in the event of their arrest, for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions :- (i). The petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 7 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. (ii). The petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 7 shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. (iii). The petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 7 shall mark attendance before the concerned police once in fourteen days till the charge-sheet is filed. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 shall appear before the jurisdictional Court and execute personal bond, surety bond and furnish surety within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.