IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6913/2019 BETWEEN:
B.A.Mohammed Ali, S/o. Abdul Rahaman, Aged 30 years, Driver, Resident of Hakathoor Village, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District.
…Petitioner (By Sri. Abdulla T.I, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Sub-Inspector of Police Rural Police Station, Madiker-Kodagu, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru-560 001.
. ... Respondent (By Sri.Rohith B.J., HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.145/2019 of Madikeri Rural police Station, Kodagu for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 307 read with 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in Cr.No.145/2019 of Madikeri Rural police Station, Kodagu for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 307 read with 34 of IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.08.2019 when the complainant went to Hakathoor village, Madikeri Taluk, the petitioner along with accused No.2 picked up quarrel with the complainant in respect of construction of compound wall and the petitioner assaulted him with a chopper on his head and accused No.2 also assaulted the complainant with a club. Hence, the complaint was lodged against the accused Nos.1 and 2. On the assault of the complainant, accused No.2 was arrested and he was released on bail. On the ground of parity, the petitioner seeks for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the petitioner is the person who actually used the weapon like chopper to assault the complainant selecting the vital part of the complainant i.e., head. For the present, wound certificate of the complainant is not available; secondly, custodial investigation and recovery of chopper is required sofar as this petitioner is concerned. Further, the petitioner has not made out any good ground to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move for regular bail before the concerned Court. In that eventuality, the trial Court shall consider the bail petition as expeditiously as possible without making unnecessary delay.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-