Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 293 (KAR)

Hanmanth S/o Harishchandra Rathod v. State Through Rural Police Station Yadgiri

2017-02-03

B.A.PATIL

body2017
ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No. 155/2016 of Yadgiri Rural Police Station, Yadgir, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 323, 447, 147, 326, 324 r/w 149 of IPC. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, on 13.10.2016 at about 6:00 a.m. when the complainant with his wife and a labourer went in the land bearing Sy.No.50 of Soudagar Tanda, at that time the accused – petitioner along with other accused persons trespassed into the said land and questioned about the ownership of the complainant. When complainant replied, he is the owner of the said land and the civil suit has been decreed in his favour, the accused petitioner immediately assaulted the complainant on vital parts of the body and caused the grievous injuries and when the wife and said labour came to rescue, at that time, the accused fled away from that place. On the basis of complaint a case has been registered against the accused petitioner. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent State. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that a false case has been registered against the accused petitioner. The offences levelled against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The victim has already been discharged from the hospital and he is out of danger. The accused petitioner has got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of he being absconded. It is further contended that investigation has been completed therefore accused petitioner is not necessary for continuation of judicial custody. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State vehemently contended that accused petitioner has committed serious offences including the one which is punishable with ten years imprisonment. He has further contended that accused petitioner is a influenceable person at this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of he being absconded and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. He has further contended that accused petitioner is a influenceable person at this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of he being absconded and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have gone through the copy of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition. As could be seen from the complaint, it reveals that when the accused petitioner went to the land of the complainant and at that time accused petitioner has assaulted on the vital part of the body of the complainant and has caused grievous injuries. No doubt injury appears to be serious in nature, but it is submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader as well as learned counsel for the petitioner that injured – complainant has already been discharged from the hospital and he is out of danger. When the offences levelled against the accused petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and the accused petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by the Court and ready to offer sureties, I feel, by imposing some stringent conditions if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses; (iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required; (iv) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.