Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 153 (KAR)

ASHOK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2019-01-11

H.P.SANDESH

body2019
JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. The petitioner in Crl.Pet.No.102325/2018 has filed petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and in Crl.Pet.No.102326/2018 the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 have filed petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in respect of Crime No.101/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case is that these petitioners along with others daily night used to abuse the complainant by going near the house and making the galata and in spite of the advice given by the elders of the locality, they continued the galata repeatedly and that on 19.10.2018 she went to her parental house and the same was witnessed by her mother-in-law and abused her in filthy language and that time her husband came and took her to her house. On 20.10.2018 in the evening when they were in the house, again started abusing her at around 9.00 p.m. and her husband by opening the latches of the door went and tried to pacify the mother-in-law and at that time one Hulgeppa abused him in filthy language and started assaulting her husband with his hands at that time the petitioner No.1 in Crl.Pet.No.102326/2018 and his friend-Raghu who is petitioner No.2 quarreled with her husband and the said Hulgeppa and these two petitioners held him and at that time the petitioner No.1 in Crl.Pet.No.102326/2018 inflicted the injury to him with knife as a result her husband fallen on the ground and immediately she shifted her husband to the District Hospital, Gadag and thereafter to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi and based on the complaint the police have registered the case. 3. The main contention of the petitioner in Crl.Pet.No.102325/2018 is that he has not committed any offences alleged in the complaint and he has been falsely implicated in the case and accused Nos.4 and 5 are already been released and there is no specific allegation against this petitioner and the injured has already been discharged from the hospital and there is no any eyewitnesses and custodial interrogation is not required and he is ready to obey the conditions that may be imposed by this Court to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. 4. 4. The petitioners in Crl.Pet.No.102326/2018 have contended that a false case has been registered against them and there was no any complaint in respect of the allegations made insofar as to the incident dated 19.10.2018 and only that on 20.10.2018 a complaint was given and these petitioners are in custody and there are no any specific allegation against them and there are no ingredients to attract the offences alleged against them and hence they may be enlarged on bail and they are ready to obey the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 5. The petitioners' counsel in his argument has reiterated the grounds taken in both the petitions and further contended that there was a dispute in respect of the property and the same is a civil dispute and the allegation made in the complaint also does not constitute the offences alleged against these petitioners and there was no any intention to take away the life of the husband of the complainant and the injured is also discharged from the hospital and no danger to the life of the injured and hence this Court has to exercise its discretion to enlarge them on bail. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP in his argument contends that the petitioner No.1 in Crl.Pet.No.102326/2018 has assaulted with the knife that too on the vital part of the abdomen and the injured was subjected to surgery and he was shifted to District Hospital, Gadag and thereafter to the KIMS Hospital, Hubballi and merely he has discharged from the hospital is not the ground and the Court has to take note of the intention of taking away the life and there are sufficient materials to believe the case of the prosecution and the contention of the petitioners that there are no eyewitnesses cannot be accepted and the very complainant is the eyewitness to the incident and hence it is not a fit case to exercise powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 7. Having heard the arguments of the petitioners' counsel and also the learned HCGP, this Court has to examine whether this Court can exercise powers under Sections 438 and 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 8. Having heard the arguments of the petitioners' counsel and also the learned HCGP, this Court has to examine whether this Court can exercise powers under Sections 438 and 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 8. The allegation made against the petitioner in Crl.Pet.No.102325/2018 is that he held the injured and assaulted him with his hands and abused in filthy language and the allegation against petitioner No.2 in Crl.Pet.No.102326/2018 who is the friend of petitioner No.1 is that he held the injured along with the petitioner in Crl.Pet.No.102325/2018 and at that time petitioner No.1 in Crl.Pet.No.102326/2018 inflicted the injured with a knife and as a result the blood was oozing and he has suffered the grievous injuries and thereafter he was shifted to the hospital. 9. Having taken note of the allegations made against the petitioners and that too particularly the allegation against petitioner No.1 in Crl.Pet.No.102326/2018 is that he inflicted the injured with knife and it appears that he came to the spot with knife and inflicted the injured with knife that too on the vital part of his abdomen and the injured was subjected to surgery in the hospital and having taken note of the fact that he was inflicted the injury to the vital part with the knife, I am of the opinion that petitioner No.1 in Crl.Pet.No.102326/2018 is not entitled for bail exercising powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 10. However, in respect of petitioner in Crl.Pet.No.102325/2018 and also petitioner No.2 in Crl.Pet.No.102326/2018 the main allegation is that the first one is assaulted with his hands and held the injured and the second one held the injured and at that time the petitioner No.1 in Crl.Pet.No.102326/2018 has inflicted the injured. Whether they have shared the common intention to take away the life of the injured and whether these petitioners having any intention to take away the life has to be tested in trial. Having considered the nature of allegation made against these petitioners and the gravity of the offences, I am of the opinion that this Court can exercise powers under Section 438 and also 439 of Cr.P.C. insofar as second petitioner is concerned. Having considered the nature of allegation made against these petitioners and the gravity of the offences, I am of the opinion that this Court can exercise powers under Section 438 and also 439 of Cr.P.C. insofar as second petitioner is concerned. Since the injured is also discharged from the hospital and having taken note of the injury which is evident as per the wound certificate and there was an injury of penetrating trauma to left chest with left sided hemopneumothorax and surgical emphysema was also seen and having considered the gravity of the offences and in view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition in Crl.Pet.No.102325/2018 is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigation Officer of the concerned police station within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order on any working day and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioner on the same day and shall enlarge him on bail on obtaining a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to his satisfaction. The petition in Crl.Pet.No.102326/2018 is partly allowed insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned and the petition in respect of petitioner No.1 is rejected. The petitioner No.2 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.101/2018 of Betageri Extension Police Station on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Both the petitioners shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses. Both the petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to conclude the further investigation. Both the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Court.