Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 399 (KAR)

Nagesh v. N. VS State

2022-03-22

V.SRISHANANDA

body2022
JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri. P.M. Siddamallappa, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the records. 2. The present petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of anticipatory bail with the following prayer: "WHEREFORE, the Petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent police to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by granting anticipatory bail in connection with the Crime No. 117/2021 in Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC Court, Hoskote, Bangalore Rural District of the Respondent- Tirumalashettyhalli Police Offence Punishable under Section 143, 147, 323, 324, 326, 354, 506, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC by allowing this Bail Petition, to meet the ends of justice and equity." 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: A complaint came to be filed by Narayanaswamy son of Mantalappa on 16.11.2021 contending that his house and house of Narayanappa is situated opposite to each other and there was few minor altercations between the two families from the beginning and there was an ill-will nurtured by the accused persons. On 14.11.2021 at about 2.15 pm., when son of the complainant Sri. Harisha was proceeding on a motor cycle carrying grass for goats, at that juncture, the tarpal which was used for covering the fire wood was stretched by the motor cycle and therefore, again there was a quarrel. The quarrel ended in Sri. Devaraj assaulting with a club on the head of the complainant and also on the left hand. Sri. Nagesh assaulted with a club on Sri. Harisha and Sri. Krishnamma assaulted wife of the complainant, Sri. Manjunatha, Sri. Narayanappa, Sri. Manoj and Sri. Pavan assaulted with the hands on the complainant and his son. They also gave the life threat and the elders of the village pacified the quarrel. 4. Based on the said complaint, Thirumalashettahalli police registered a case in Crime No. 117/2021 on 16.11.2021 for the following offences: "Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 354, 504, 506 of IPC, 1860." 5. The police are investigating the matter and petitioners are not available to the Investigating Agency. 6. The attempt made by the petitioners seeking grant of anticipatory bail was turned down by the learned District Judge dated 29.11.2021 in Crl. Misc. No. 1863/2021. The police are investigating the matter and petitioners are not available to the Investigating Agency. 6. The attempt made by the petitioners seeking grant of anticipatory bail was turned down by the learned District Judge dated 29.11.2021 in Crl. Misc. No. 1863/2021. Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners are the law abiding citizens and in fact there was a counter complaint filed by Smt. Krishnamma, which was registered by the very same Police in Crime. No. 118/2021 dated 16.11.2021 and police in active collusion that Smt. Krishnamma, had registered a case only for the minor offences and invoked Section 326 of IPC, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned and therefore, sought for bail. 8. He has further contended that the material on record does not dis-entitle the petitioners for an order of grant of anticipatory bail. More so, when the petitioners have been granted bail by the jurisdictional Magistrate. 9. He has further contended that the petitioners are ready to abide by any of the conditions including to join the investigation and sought for grant of bail. 10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail petition on the ground that the complainant has sustained grievous injuries. 11. Perused the material on record, in view of the rival contentions of the parties. 12. The incident had occurred on 14.11.2021 at about 2.15 pm., A minor incident has been blown out of proportion and there was an assault made by the petitioners herein. Wound certificate prima facie reveal that there was a grievous injuries sustained by the complainant. The weapon used was the club. 13. Suffice to say that the material on record would show the gravity of the offence is on the higher side. This Court at the time of deciding the bail petition cannot hold a mini trial to find out the merits or demerits of the case. 14. Mere, lodging the counter compliant itself would not absolve the liability of the petitioners. Further, the grant of bail to the accused persons in the counter case would not be of much avail to the petitioners to obtain an order of grant of anticipatory bail before this Court. Further, the custodial investigation is also necessary. 14. Mere, lodging the counter compliant itself would not absolve the liability of the petitioners. Further, the grant of bail to the accused persons in the counter case would not be of much avail to the petitioners to obtain an order of grant of anticipatory bail before this Court. Further, the custodial investigation is also necessary. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7. 15. Even according to the complaint averments, petitioner No. 5-Smt. Krishnamma is a lady and the allegations against her is that she has assaulted wife of the complainant. Taking note of the said fact, this Court pass the following; ORDER (i) Petition is allowed in part. (ii) Petition against petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 is hereby rejected. (iii) Petition against petitioner No. 5 is allowed. (iv) Petitioner No. 5 shall join the investigation Officer on 31.03.2022 at 10.00 a.m. (v) Thereafter, petitioner No. 5 be enlarged on bail on taking a bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety for the likesum. (vi) Petitioner No. 5 shall not tamper the prosecution witness or hamper the investigation process in any manner. (vii) Petitioner No. 5 shall not repeat the similar offences. (viii) Petitioner No. 5 shall attend the Court regularly. Violation of any of the conditions above would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail. Ordered accordingly.