Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 149 (KAR)

Veeresh v. State Of Karnataka

2020-01-17

ASHOK S.KINAGI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2019 passed in Crl.Misc.No.435/2019 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, this petition is filed. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Suresh S/o. Shankarappa Batur resident of Chinchali taluk, Gadag filed a complaint before Mulgund Police authorities alleging that he is the resident of Chinchali village along with his wife, children, his brother and other family members. It is alleged that on 27.10.2019 in the morning his brother Manjunath came along with one Anand Laxmigudi, Dodda Mudukappa Waddar and Mudukappa Waddar were coming outside the tea shop and at that time, accused No.1 picked up a quarrel with his brother Manjunath by abusing him in filthy language and by giving a life threat assaulting the said Manjunath with a stone. It is further alleged that one Nagarja assaulted him with a stick and Veeresh by his hand on the mouth of his brother and he has stated that public gathered there and pacified the accused and separated them. The accused while going, gave him a life threat. It is further alleged that accused with an intention to kill his brother had picked up a quarrel with him and also assaulted his brother. On these allegations, a complaint came to be filed against the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered a case in P.S. Crime No.53/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 28.10.2019. Since then he is in judicial custody. The petitioner has filed bail application before the trial Court. The trial Court rejected the said application vide order dated 13.11.2019. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, filed this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned H.C.G.P. for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the accused No.2 has been allowed and the petitioner is standing on the same footing and he is entitled to release on bail. Further the petitioner is aged 23 years and he is the only earning member in the family. If he is kept behind the bar, his family will be put to hardship. The petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. Further the petitioner is aged 23 years and he is the only earning member in the family. If he is kept behind the bar, his family will be put to hardship. The petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. The petitioner is a resident of Chinchali and having movable and immovable properties and there is no possibility of fleeing from justice or from the jurisdiction of the Court. He further submits that charge sheet has not yet been filed. 5. Per contra, learned H.C.G.P. opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is further submitted that there are prima facie material against the petitioner. If he is released on bail, there is every chance of tampering the witnesses. Hence, she sought for rejection of bail petition. 6. From the perusal of the records it goes to show that the accused No.2 has already been released on bail. The petitioner is also standing on the same footing as that of accused No.2. Further according to the records, the petitioner has assaulted with the hands and he had not possessed any dangerous weapon. The petitioner had not intention to commit any act. The said incident took place due to sudden provocation and the petitioner is already in custody since from 28.10.2019 and the police have not filed any charge sheet till today. The injuries sustained by the complainants brother are simple in nature and the injured has already been discharged from the hospital. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is kept in the judicial custody, no purpose would be served. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.53/2019 of Mulagund Police Station for the of fence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (ii) He shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing regularly. (ii) He shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing regularly. (iii) He shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer and he should kept himself present before the Investigating Officer as and when called by the Investigating Officer. (iv) He shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (v) He shall not indulge in any similar offence.