IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7249/2017 Between:
Farooq @ Mohammed Parveez, S/o Mohammed Riyaz, Aged about 21 years, Residing at No.62, 8th Main Road, 1st Cross, Byrasandra, Jayanagar III Block, Bengaluru -560 011. ...Petitioner (By Sri A.S. Kulkarni, Advocate) And The State of Karnataka, By Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru- 560 011.
Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru- 560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Crl.P is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.138/2017 of Siddapura Police Station, Bangalore for the offence p/u/s 144 and 307, r/w 149 of IPC.
This Criminal petition is coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 120-B read with Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.138/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.6 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, so also, other materials placed on record.
4. So for as the injured is concerned, the material goes to show that the injured sustained only one injury and on the same day the injured has been discharged from the hospital. So, it goes to show that the life of the injured is out of danger and he is safe.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the investigation is completed, chargesheet is filed, petitioner is falsely implicated in the case. Hence, he sought for allowing of the petition.
6. On the contrary learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the petitioner possessed deadly weapons and he has not cooperated with the investigation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
7. Looking to the materials placed on record, the alleged injuries are simple in nature. The offence punishable under section 307 of IPC, which is major offence in this case, though it is non bailable in nature, but not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be granted with bail.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the petitioner/ accused No.6 on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 120-B read with Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent-Police station Crime No.138/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for.
iv. Petitioners has to 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 MR