Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 944 (KAR)

Shashikumar v. State of Karnataka

2022-07-21

H.P.SANDESH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo stating that petitioner No. 1 has been arrested and thereafter enlarged on bail. Hence, he is not pressing the petition in respect of petitioner No. 1. 2. In view of the submission, the petition as against petitioner No. 1 is dismissed as having become infructuous. 3. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge petitioner No. 2 on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crl.Misc.No. 641/2022 (Crime No. 82/2022) registered by Harihara Police Station, Davanagere District, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354B, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. 4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner No. 2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 5. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that a complaint was filed by the victim that petitioner No. 2 and other accused both came and abused the victim and her husband in a filthy language due to previous ill-will and dragged her husband and assaulted on his face, cheek, right hand and left portion of the chest by taking the club, which was there at the shop and when she went and questioned the same, both of them abused her in a filthy language and outraged the modesty of a woman. Based on the complaint, the police have invoked the offences under Sections 323, 324, 354B, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. 6. The learned counsel for petitioner No. 2 would submit that the very complaint discloses that there was a prior ill-will between them. The learned counsel submits that accused No. 1, who inflicted injury has already been enlarged on bail and the offence invoked against accused No. 1 is Section 354B of IPC and not against this petitioner and the injuries are simple in nature and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that petitioner No. 2 and other accused both of them inflicted injury with club on the husband of the complainant and hence, there is a prima facie case against petitioner No. 2. 8. 7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that petitioner No. 2 and other accused both of them inflicted injury with club on the husband of the complainant and hence, there is a prima facie case against petitioner No. 2. 8. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, subsequent to the filing of the petition, petitioner No. 1 was arrested and enlarged on bail and having taken note of the specific allegation is made against petitioner No. 1 and an omnibus allegation is made that assaulted with club and no specific overt-act allegation is made against petitioner No. 2 in the complaint. When such being the case and when the injuries are simple in nature, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. with a condition to cooperate with the Investigating Officer for investigation. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition in respect of petitioner No. 2 is allowed. Consequently, petitioner No. 2 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crl.Misc.No. 641/2022 (Crime No. 82/2022) registered by Harihara Police Station, Davanagere District, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354B, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner No. 2 shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. (ii) The petitioner No. 2 shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner No. 2 shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for. (iv) The petitioner No. 2 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier. (iii) The petitioner No. 2 shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for. (iv) The petitioner No. 2 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier. (v) The petitioner No. 2 shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.