Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Doddamanchanayaka And Others vs Ra

High Court Of Karnataka|29 June, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JUNE 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4476/2017 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4477/2017 IN CRL.P. NO.4476/2017 BETWEEN:
1. DODDAMANCHANAYAKA S/O LATE BETTA BEEDU MANCHANAYAKA AGED 50 YEARS 2. GOVINDA NAYAKA S/O LATE MARICHOWDANAYAKA AGED 52 YEARS 3. SUNIL S/O SOMA NAYAKA AGED 20 YEARS 4. GURUSWAMY S/O DODDAMANCHANAYAKA AGED 18 YEARS 5. SHANTHAMMA W/O SOMANAYAKA AGED 35 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KENCHALAGUDU VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK MYSORE – 571 311. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAYAPURA POLICE MYSORE TALUK THROUGH THE S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.84/2017 OF JAYAPURA P.S., MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 427, 307 R/W 149 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P. NO.4477/2017 BETWEEN:
MANCHANAYAKA S/O LATE BETTA BEEDU MANCHANAYAKA AGED 44 YEARS RESIDENT OF KENCHALAGUDU VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK MYSORE – 571 311. …PETITIONER (BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAYAPURA POLICE MYSORE TALUK THROUGH THE S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.84/2017 OF JAYAPURA P.S., MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 427, 307 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioners in both these petitions are arraigned as A-1 to A-6 in the FIR registered by the respondent-police in Cr.No.84/2017 in respect of the offences under sections 143, 147, 427, 307 r/w section 149 of IPC.
3. The allegation is, a complaint was given to the police regarding illegal cultivation of land by the petitioner of Crl.P.No.4477/2017(A-1). The complainant was called upon by the ASI of the respondent-police to show the land. When he went to the land, A-1 and his family members/A-2 to A-6 attempted to assault him. They damaged his scooter etc.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that A-1 (petitioner in Crl.P.No.4477/17) is in custody since 15.5.2017 and A-2 to A-6 (petitioners in Crl.P.No.4476/2017) apprehend their arrest.
5. Having regard to the nature of allegation, it does not warrant continued detention of A-1 till filing of the final report. Since the petitioners in Crl.P.No.4476/2017 plead innocence, there is no impediment to allow the petitions.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. Petitioners in Crl.P.No.4476/2017 are granted anticipatory bail in Cr.No.84/2017. They shall forthwith appear before Investigating Officer. In that event, the respondent- Investigating Officer is at liberty to interrogate them. In the event of their arrest by the respondent-Investigating Officer, they shall be enlarged on bail on each of them executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum. They shall co-operate with the respondent-Investigating Officer during further course of investigation.
Petitioner in Crl.P.No.4477/17 is enlarged on bail in Crime No.84/2017 of respondent-police, subject to the following conditions:
(i) He shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) He shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during further course of investigation.
(iii) He shall attend the Court on all hearing dates regularly and punctually.
(iv) He shall not terrorize the complainant and the prosecution witnesses.
Dvr:
Sd/- JUDGE
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Doddamanchanayaka And Others vs Ra

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
29 June, 2017
Judges
  • Rathnakala