Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 378 (KAR)

K. M. Poornesh v. State of Karnataka

2023-03-06

V SRISHANANDA

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER V Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri. K.S. Ganesha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S. Vishnumurthy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records. 2. Present petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: 'The petitioner, therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the petition and enlarge him on bail in Crime No.0091/2022 (C.C.No.2116/2022) of Balehonnur Police Station, Chikkamagaluru District, pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Chikkamagaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307, 504 and 506 of IPC on such terms and conditions as deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity.' 3. Upon the complaint lodged by Gowtham S/o Sathisha @ Halappa, the Balehonnur Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.91/2022 on 13.08.2022. 4. The gist of the complaint averments reveal that on 12.08.2022 at about 7.30 p.m., when complainant was proceeding towards the grocery shop of Pradeepa and when he was drinking the fruit juice, the accused-petitioner came there and abused the complainant in filthy language and with the help of a broken bottle piece he assaulted the complainant on the face of the complainant and also intended to kill him. The police after registering the case, investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet inter alia arrested the accused-petitioner on 13.08.2022. 5. The attempt made by the petitioner to seek grant of bail was turned down by the learned District Judge in Crl.Misc. No.1241/2022 by order dated 31.12.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Sri. K.S. Ganesha, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition vehemently contended that the injured - complainant was discharged from the hospital with a history of simple injury and as such, per se there is no material on record which would justify the invoking of Section 307 of IPC in the case on hand and a criminal incident has been blown out of proposition by the prosecution and sought for grant of bail. 7. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail petition stating that the petitioner is a known criminal and several cases are pending against him and therefore he is not a law abiding citizen and if he is enlarged on bail he may not be available for trial and he may repeat the offences and sought for rejection of bail. 8. In the light of the rival contentions, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously. 9. The case on hand, injured has being discharged with the history of simple injury. 10. No doubt, several cases are pending against the petitioner herein and according to counsel for petitioner in two cases petitioner has been acquitted. 11. Taking note of the fact that the injured has sustained only simply injury and he is already in custody from 13.08.2022, this court is of the considered opinion that this is not a case where custodial trial is utmost necessary. 12. Apprehension of the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable and stringent conditions. Accordingly, the following: ORDER 1. The Criminal Petition is allowed. 2. Petitioner-accused be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court; 3. Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly; 4. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/indirectly; 5. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Chikmagaluru District without prior permission; If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order. Ordered accordingly.