Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 523 (KAR)

Kencha @ Kenchappa v. State of Karnataka

2022-04-12

V.SRISHANANDA

body2022
JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri.Hareesh Bhandary T , 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 439 Cr.P.C with the following prayer: 'WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.17/2022 of Harihara Rural Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 307, 341 and 504 read with section 34 of I.P.C., pending on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge Davanagere, in the interest of justice.' 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: a complaint came to be lodged by Sri.Neelappa son of Sri.Erappa to Harihara Rural Police Station, Davanagere District registered in Crime No.17/2022 on 25.01.2022 for the following offences: 'Sections 323, 324, 307, 341 aND 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC.' 4. The gist of the complaint averments is that; on 24.01.2022 at about 9.30 pm., the complainant was to visit Mysuru for his work and he had requested his relatives Sri.Mallikarjuna, Sri.Ramesha and his nephew Sri.Prashantha to drop him to the bye-pass road at about 9.45 pm. Since, they were hungry, they proceeded to an Egg Rice shop situated in front of Ganesha Bar. at that juncture, they found Sri.Kencha, Sri.Basavaraju and Sri.Ganesha at about 10.00 pm., There was a previous ill-will nurtured by them and on the basis of the same, they picked up a quarrel and abused the complainant party in a filthy language. When they questioned the same, all the three persons namely Sri.Kencha, Sri.Basavaraju and Sri.Ganesha assaulted the complainant on chest and slapped him. One of them, took out a broken Beer bottle and assaulted him on the forehead and stabbed on the right side of the chest region and also on the right side shoulder. Sri.Mallikarjuna, Sri.Ramesha and Sri.Prashantha being the relatives, pacified the quarrel and took him to Harihara Government Hospital and thereafter, to Davanagere Hospital. 5. Based on the said complaint, police registered a case as aforesaid and investigated the matter, inter alia arrested the present petitioners and sent them to judicial custody. 6. The attempt made by the petitioners seeking grant of bail was turned down by the learned Principal District Judge, Davanagere by order dated 16.02.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.100/2022. Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court. 7. 6. The attempt made by the petitioners seeking grant of bail was turned down by the learned Principal District Judge, Davanagere by order dated 16.02.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.100/2022. Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Hareesh Bhandary T, reiterating the bail grounds contended that the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them and the previous incident has blown out of proportion by the prosecution. In order to substantiate his arguments, he has filed a memo with the discharge summary issued by Chigateri Government Hospital, Davanagere, wherein, it is found that the injured person has been discharged on 02.02.2022. 8. Having regard to the fact that the injured person has already been discharged from the hospital and also taking note of the over all circumstances, the counsel for the petitioner sought for grant of bail. 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail petition. 10. Perused the material on record including the discharge summary. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, the injured who got admitted to the hospital on 25.01.2022 got discharged on 02.02.2022. 12. Learned High Court Government Pleader while filing the written objections has also brought to the notice of the Court that the injured has sustained simple injuries and did not dispute the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital on 02.02.2022. 13. Taking note of all these aspects of the matter and also the fact that the petitioners are in judicial custody from 25.01.2022, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail. 14. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution can be met with, by imposing stringent conditions. accordingly, this Court pass the following; ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each, with two sureties for the likesum. (iii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly hamper the investigation process in any manner or tamper the prosecution witnesses. (iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Davanagere District without prior permission. (v) The petitioners shall attend the Court regularly (vi) The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer on every third Sunday between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm., till the final report is filed. (iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Davanagere District without prior permission. (v) The petitioners shall attend the Court regularly (vi) The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer on every third Sunday between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm., till the final report is filed. Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail. Ordered accordingly.