IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7404/2017 BETWEEN:
Basavaraj @ Basappa S/o Siddappa Major in Age R/at Tanamanakal Village Lingasur Taluk Raichur District Raichur-584 139. .. PETITIONER (By Sri Dinesh Kumar Rao K, Adv.) AND:
The State of Karnataka By Nandini Layout Police Station Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court Building High Court of Karnataka Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This criminal petition is filed under Section under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.284/2017 of Nandini Layout P.S., Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.284/2017.
2. Brief facts of the case of prosecution is that the complainant on 21.7.2017 at about 7.30 p.m. received a phone call from his workers stating that one Shankar has sustained head injuries and first aid was given in ESI Hospital and later, he was shifted to Victoria Hospital for further treatment. The complainant went to the said hospital to enquire with the injured. The injured was not in a position to give statement. He came to know from one Murthy, the worker in his company, that on 21.7.2017 at 6.40 p.m., a galata took place between one Shankar and Basappa and the said Basappa assaulted with drilling machine on the head of the injured and he sustained head injuries. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered by the respondent police.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State.
4. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record. I have also perused the order passed by the Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application.
5. The petitioner has contended that he is innocent and he had not involved in the alleged offence. As submitted by both sides, the injured has already been discharged form the hospital. This goes to show that the life of the injured is safe and he is out of danger. It is no doubt true that the learned HCGP made submission that looking to the nature of the injury, the injuries were both grievous and simple in nature. However, as the injured is discharged from the hospital and though the alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner can be admitted to anticipatory bail.
6. Hence, the petition is allowed. The respondent- police are directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.284/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/- JUDGE Cs/-