IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1695 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
GIRISH @ GUBBACHHI GIRI S/O. GOVINDARAJU K.V. AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT.#3, 2ND CROSS V.B.LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM BANGALORE – 560 036.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI MURUGESH V.CHARATI, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE BY KADUGODI P.S. BANGALORE CITY – 560 067 REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI NASARULLA KHAN, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.298/2018 (C.C.NO.53927/2018) OF KADUGODI P.S., BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 224, 307, 353, 333, 427 R/W. 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 25, 27 OF ARMS ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on bail in Cr.No.298/2018 registered by Kadugodi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 224, 427, 307 and 353 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of ARMS Act, 1959.
2. The allegation against this petitioner by the complainant one Muniraju, Head Constable is that the Police Constable along with other persons went to apprehend this accused and another accused, who were involved in Cr.No.516/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 342, 364, 302, 201, 120 (B) r/w 149 of IPC. At that time, the accused No.1 tried to shoot the complainant and this petitioner said to have assaulted the complainant with dagger and caused injuries. After registering the case, police arrested the petitioner on 11.11.2018 and since then, he is in custody.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he is not involved in any of the offences. There is no overt act alleged against this petitioner. He is ready to abide by any of the conditions to be imposed by this Court. The police have already filed charge sheet. Hence, he prays for enlarging him on bail by allowing this petition.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent/State objected the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he is involved in murder and other criminal cases and attempted to murder the police and if he is enlarged on bail, there is likelihood of committing similar offences. Hence, he prays for dismissing the petition.
5. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it is seen from the records that the petitioner/accused No.2 along with accused No.1 one Sri Naveen Kumar tried to kill the complainant by shooting with a gun and this petitioner assaulted the complainant with dagger and caused grievous injuries. The wound certificate of the complainant also shows deep cut injury due to assault made by the petitioner. There is sufficient material placed on record to connect the accused with the crime for having attempted to commit murder of the complainant, when tried to arrest this petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, merely investigation is completed, that itself is not a ground to grant bail to the petitioner. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is likelihood of the petitioner committing similar offences, absconding and tampering with the witnesses are not ruled out. It appears the accused are rowdy elements. Therefore, I do not find any sufficient reason to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.2.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE ca