Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 307 (KAR)

Praveena @ Ole @ Spiky v. State of Karnataka

2023-02-22

M G UMA

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER M G Uma, J. - The petitioner - accused No.3 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.283/2022 of Byatarayanapura Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of XXXI A.C.M.M., Bangalore, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Aravinda Kumar. 2. Heard Sri.K.G.Kumara, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrested as accused No.3. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 24.11.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody. The informant has lodged the first information making allegations against accused Nos. 1 and 2 that accused No.1 slapped the informant and assaulted him with knife and similarly, accused No.2 said to have been assaulted the informant with a stone. It is also alleged that accused No.1 assaulted the informant's friend Mr.Swaroop with knife and caused grievous injuries to him. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he caught hold of the informant and assaulted him with hands. None of the injured were treated as inpatients. The petitioner is not required for further investigation and detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Specific overt acts are alleged against each of the accused including the petitioner. The petitioner is a rowdy sheeter and rowdy sheet is opened in Chennammanakere Achukattu police station and he is involved in another criminal case for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The informant sustained four simple injuries, whereas the other injured sustained one grievous injury. Investigation is still in progress. The petitioner is a rowdy sheeter and rowdy sheet is opened in Chennammanakere Achukattu police station and he is involved in another criminal case for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The informant sustained four simple injuries, whereas the other injured sustained one grievous injury. Investigation is still in progress. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of he tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: 'Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?' My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. The informant has filed the first information making specific allegations against each of the accused. Accused No.1 is said to have slapped the informant and assaulted him with a knife and he has also assaulted other injured, while accused No.2 assaulted the informant with a stone. It is alleged that the present petitioner caught hold of the informant and assaulted him with hands. Admittedly, the petitioner was apprehended on 24.11.2022. The charge sheet is not yet filed. The averments made in the first information discloses that both the injured and informant have not taken treatment in the hospital as inpatients. Even though the submission made by the learned HCGP that the petitioner is a rowdy sheeter, no such materials are placed before the Court. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail, subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses. 7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.283/2022 of Byatarayanapura Police Station, Bengaluru, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions: a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences. b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences. b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required. If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail. On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.