IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6230/2021

BETWEEN:

AVINASH.J @ AVI S/O LATE JASYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.19 MAHADESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD KANAKAGIRI VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU PIN CODE-570001

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI RAJU C.N: ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BY K.R.POLICE STATION MYSORE, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BANGALORE-560009

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI H.R.SHOWRI: HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.47/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.47/2021 of Krishnaraja Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Manoj.

2. Heard Sri.Raju.C.N, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.R.Showri, 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 arrayed as accused No.1. 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 01.07.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. All other accused are already enlarged on bail. Even though it is contended that the

2

petitioner and other accused assaulted the injured with an intention to cause their death, they have not sustained any grievous injuries. Since the investigation is already completed, 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. The injured himself is the informant who specifically stated regarding the over-tact committed by the petitioner and other accused. It is stated petitioner who is the main accused assaulted the informant and other injured with a hockey stick on their heads with an intention to cause death. Even though the accused Nos.2 and 3 are already enlarged on bail, the

3

present petitioner being the main accused, who used hockey stick for assaulting, is not entitled for bail at this stage since investigation is still in progress. 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:

R E A S O N S

6. The materials placed on record disclose that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. It is specifically stated by the injured Manoj that the present petitioner assaulted Abhishek with hockey stick, on his head. He also assaulted other injured. The wound certificate relating to the informant Manoj and injured Abhishek produced by the learned HCGP for perusal of the Court discloses that the informant sustained two simple injuries, whereas Abhishek sustained one grievous injury and one simple injury. All these materials prima-facie discloses the commission of the offences by the petitioner and other accused. At this stage, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. However, it is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation or that he is having any criminal antecedents. Under such circumstances, his detention in custody would amount to infringement of right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to 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.

5

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.47/2021 of Krishnaraja Police Station, 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 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.

Sd/- JUDGE

SKS/GVP