Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 899 (KAR)

H. R. Mahesh v. State

2020-05-22

K.NATARAJAN

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for granting regular bail. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.55/2020 registered by the K.R.Pet Town Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC on the complaint of Sandeep. 2. It is alleged by the complainant that on 27.02.2020 at about 5 P.M., when the complainant was on his way in his car, he found some people gathered near Santhe bachahalli road. He went near the place and saw that his maternal uncle Kumar was sitting on the road side and has sustained injuries on his neck and hand. Immediately, he himself along with his friend shifted the injured-Kumar to the Adichunchanagiri hospital. During the investigation, the police arrested this petitioner on 04.03.2020 and he was remanded to the judicial custody. He had moved bail petition before the Sessions Court, Mandya, sitting at Srirangapatna, which came to be dismissed. Hence, he is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated by the Police. He was kept in illegal custody by the police for a long time. When the relative of the petitioner moved the Habeas Corpus petition before this Court, immediately, the police produced the accused before the Magistrate. The alleged offence is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The injured was a rowdy-sheeter. Even in his statement, he has not stated anything about this petitioner. The injured has been already discharged from the hospital. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition. 4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader objected the bail petition on the ground that the accused and others attempted to commit the murder of the injured-Kumar. The co-accused was not yet arrested by the police. The investigation is still under progress. If the accused is released on bail, he is likely to commit similar offence and absconding from the case is not ruled out. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition. 5. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the record, which would go to show that the K.R.Pet town police registered the case against the petitioner and another person namely, Dhananjaya on the complaint filed by Sandeep. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition. 5. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the record, which would go to show that the K.R.Pet town police registered the case against the petitioner and another person namely, Dhananjaya on the complaint filed by Sandeep. The statement of the injured is also recorded by the police. The complainant has stated that Dhananjaya and Mahesh attempted to kill the injured due to previous enmity and it is also borne out from the records that this accused-petitioner has been arrested and produced before the Court on 05.03.2020. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was taken to the police station on 29.02.2020 from Bengaluru when he was running the tent house at Dasarahalli. The relative of the petitioner filed Habeas Corpus petition in W.P.(H.C)No.22/2020 on 04.03.2020. On the same day, the police produced the accused-petitioner before the Court. The CCTV footage is also available in order to show that the police took the custody of the accused from Bengaluru on 29.02.2020. Be that as it may, the alleged offences is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is in custody for almost more than two and half months and there is no recovery of any weapons from this petitioner. The injured is already discharged from the hospital and he is out of danger. Merely, the co-accused is not yet arrested itself is not a ground to reject the bail petition of this petitioner. Therefore, by imposing certain conditions, if bail is granted to the petitioner no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case. Accordingly, I proceed for following: ORDER Criminal Petition is allowed. Merely, the co-accused is not yet arrested itself is not a ground to reject the bail petition of this petitioner. Therefore, by imposing certain conditions, if bail is granted to the petitioner no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case. Accordingly, I proceed for following: ORDER Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.55/2020 of K.R.Pet Town Police Station, Mandya for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal Court/trial Court, as the case may be (the physical presence of the sureties is dispensed with for the present and they shall appear as and when the Committal Court is directed to appear) (However, surety affidavit and document shall be furnished through online); ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly; iii) petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/indirectly; iv) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer as and when required for the purpose of investigation. In view of disposal of main petition, I.A.No.1/2020 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.