IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7504/2019 c/w CRIMINAL PETITION No.7563/2019 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.7504/2019 BETWEEN:
Anil @ K.N. Anil Kumar, S/o K.N. Nanjundaiah, Aged about 27 years, Residing at No.38, 4th Cross, 80 feet Ring Road, Nagadevanahalli, Bengaluru Vishwavidyalaya, Bengaluru – 560 056. …Petitioner (By Sri. Prakash R., Advocate) IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.7563/2019 K.T.Shrinivas, S/o Tirumalaswamy, Aged about 20 years, No.140, Building No.32, Shirke Apartments, Kengeri Upanagara, Bengaluru – 560 060. …Petitioner (By Sri. M.R.Manjunath for Sri.Ravindra Goud P., Advs.,) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By Kengeri Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001. …Respondent (Common in both Petition) (By Sri. Honnappa, HCGP) These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.269/2019 registered by Kengeri Police Station, Bengaluru For the offence P/U/S 307 of IPC.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner in Criminal Petition No.7504/2019 is arraigned as accused No.3 and petitioner in Criminal Petition No.7563/2019 is arraigned as accused No.2. Petitioners are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.269/2019 of Kengeri Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
2. The allegations as could be seen from the First Information Report are that the complainant has lodged a complaint in the night of 21/09/2019 at about 12.30 hours stating that he went to saw the injured Raghavendra and K.N.Avinash, who were taking treatment in the said hospital. On enquiry, they told the complainant that on that day at about 11.30 hours, one Shashank along with his friends picked up quarrel with them and assaulted on their stomach and chest portion. Thereafter, they were shifted to the hospital and they are still taking treatment.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused learned H.C.G.P for the respondent – State and perused the records.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a quarrel between two groups and in fact, petitioners were also sustained injuries and they have also taken treatment in the hospital.
5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the injured persons are not yet discharged from the hospital and they are still taking treatment. What are the injuries sustained by them and whether they are fatal in nature and what exactly the status of the injured, what is the role of the petitioners in the incident, are not forthcoming in the complaint. All these aspects have to be ascertained during the course of full-fledged trial. In such circumstances, petitioners are not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
6. Hence, both the petitions are dismissed. However, petitioners are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court seeking regular bail. In that event, the bail petitions filed by them shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/- JUDGE Msu