Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 585 (KAR)

Deekshith S/o Ananda v. State Of Karnataka

2018-05-04

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2018
ORDER : Learned High Court Government Pleader who has taken notice for the respondent-State has submitted his oral objections. 2. Perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. Heard both side. 4. At the instance of the alleged injured Sri.Shankaralinga Thamagonda the complainant police have registered the crime in their Station Crime No.41/2018 initially against four accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307 read with 34 of IPC. 5. The summary of the complaint is that on 09.03.2018 in the night in Koragajja Temple at Kolnadu of Mangaluru Taluk a festival was going on, whereat the complainant was working in the catering at the festival premises. At that time, the four accused i.e. accused Nos.1 to 4 went there. Among them, accused No.1 patted on the back of the complainant. In that regard, exchange of words and a quarrel took place between the complainant and accused No.1. On the same night i.e. at 00.15 hours of 10.03.2018, the said accused No.1 joined by his friends who were accused Nos.2, 3 and 4, approached the complainant and initiated quarrel with him and attempted to kill him by stabbing him with a knife. In the process, the brothers of the complainant who rushed to the rescue of the complainant, also sustained injuries. 6. After registering the complaint, according to the complainant police, during the interrogation of accused No.1 who was already arrested at that time, the name of present petitioner was also revealed as one of the coaccused who was said to have been present with the alleged accused at the time of incident. As such, according to the complainant police, the present petitioner is also one of the accused in the said crime. 7. It is the contention of the petitioner as well as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that nowhere the complainant, who claims to be the victim in the alleged incident, has whispered the name of the present petitioner. The entire complaint is silent about the presence or involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged crime. For no valid reasons the complainant police are now behind the present petitioner for his arrest in the matter. The alleged statement said to have been given by the accused go in no way and is acted upon to suspect the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged crime. 8. For no valid reasons the complainant police are now behind the present petitioner for his arrest in the matter. The alleged statement said to have been given by the accused go in no way and is acted upon to suspect the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged crime. 8. The learned High Court Government Pleader who has taken notice for the respondent, the investigating officer, has collected materials to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the crime. Merely because the name of the present petitioner was not involved at the first instance by the injured complainant, by that itself it cannot be held that the present petitioner was innocent with respect to the alleged crime. Learned High Court Government Pleader also apprehends that in case of his enlargement on bail, the petitioner may flee from justice and securing him for investigation and trial to be held thereafter would be very difficult task. 9. As could be gathered prima facie from the available material, the complainant before the police was none else than the alleged victim in the incident. Even though the said complainant has given a detailed account of the alleged incident including the alleged assailants who were said to have assaulted him, still he has not whispered about either the presence or the active participation of the present petitioner in the alleged crime. Even according to the investigating officer, as could be gathered at this stage from the materials available before this Court, it is only based upon a revelation said to have been made by the arrested accused that the investigating officer has suspected the alleged involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of crime. 10. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused Nos.2 and 3 have already been enlarged on bail in this case has not been denied or disputed from the other side. Further, by perusal of the material available at this stage it go to show that necessity for arresting the present accused for any alleged recovery is also not shown by the prosecution. According to the petitioner, the alleged injured/complainant has long back been discharged from the hospital and he is suffering with no ailment. However, same has to be assessed only after going through the necessary papers which the investigating officer may produce in the Trial Court. 11. According to the petitioner, the alleged injured/complainant has long back been discharged from the hospital and he is suffering with no ailment. However, same has to be assessed only after going through the necessary papers which the investigating officer may produce in the Trial Court. 11. The apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may flee from justice could be checked by imposing reasonable conditions. 12. Considering the nature of the offence and the alleged incorporation of the name of the present petitioner at a subsequent stage in the alleged commission of the crime and also finding that no reasons have been shown for the necessity to apprehend the accused for investigating purpose. I am of the view that the present petitioner be released on the relief of anticipatory bail. 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following ORDER In the event the petitioner is arrested by the Mulki Police Station, in Crime No.41/2018, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 307 read with 34 of IPC, he shall be enlarged on the relief of anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions that; (i) He shall execute a personal bond for sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging authority. (ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday, between 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m., and mark his attendance till the investigation is completed and final report is filed. (iii) He shall not hamper and tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (iv) He shall voluntarily surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court within fifteen days from today.