Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1193 (KAR)

Prashant S/o Trimbak Dange v. State of Karnataka

2017-09-01

N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent police. 2. The accused No.1 and 2 who are the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in this case seek an order to enlarge them on bail in Crime No.105/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 302, 504, 506 R/w 149 of IPC. 3. Insofar as the FIR, is registered against five persons and these petitioners are accused No.1 and 2. It is stated that on 23.05.2017 at about 9.30 PM, the son of complainant by name Mohammed Junaid Ahmed was returning to his house at KHB Colony by car, by that time a marriage procession was moving on in the same street and people in the said procession did not give way to the car and quarrel started between the son of the complainant and Prashant Dange, Anil Beldar, Anil Dange and Pramila Dange attacked, and they assaulted his son with fists and kicked him by throwing him on the ground. 4. Though the complainant is not eyewitness to the incident, on hearing the news, he went there and saw the attack was being made on his son inflicting such nature on the different injuries that were sufficient enough to cause the death of the son of the complainant and he died. 5. Learned HCGP would submit that the Postmortem report that reveals the following injuries: Fractures Dislocation/more detailed description of injury OR disease: All the above mentioned injuries are ante mortem in nature. Time since death is 0812 hours prior to post mortem examination. Viscera’s sent in sealed and labeled bottles for chemical analysis to FSL: YES. 6. The investigation is said to have been completed and charge sheet has been filed during which period the petitioners were in judicial custody. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are in judicial custody from 24.05.2017. 7. The attack as stated by the complainant, after the altercation started between the son of the complainant and the accused persons at 930 PM over the traffic that was gathered because of the procession of marriage party. 8. In the context and circumstances, I am of the sincere opinion that in case the petitioner is granted bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution. 8. In the context and circumstances, I am of the sincere opinion that in case the petitioner is granted bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution. However, apprehensions of the prosecution could be resolved by imposing conditions. Hence the; ORDER Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner is hereby allowed subject to Conditions 1. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two solvent sureties possessing immovable property for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; 2. The petitioners shall not indulge in to hampering the witnesses directly or indirectly; 3. The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer on every 20th of each month between 7.00 AM to 8.00 PM till the stage of hearing before charge is completed. 4. The petitioners shall not leave the State of Karnataka without the permission of the Trial Judge till the stage of hearing before charge is completed.