IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CRL.P.No.7604/2018 BETWEEN:
Gokularaj.D.E., S/o Eshwarappa.D.S., Aged about 19 years, R/at Sirsi Mariyamma Temple, Mayappanakere, Shikaripura – 577 427. … PETITIONER (By Sri S.P.Kulkarni, Adv. for Sri Srikanth Patil.K., Adv.) AND:
The State of Karnataka By Kote Police Station, Shivamogga, Now represented by State PP, High Court of Karnataka Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. … RESPONDENT (By Smt. Namitha Mahesh.B.G., HCGP) This criminal petition is filed under 438 of Cr.PC praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.249/2018 of Kote Police Station, Shivamogga District, for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 307 read with 34 IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER 1. Petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.249/2018 of Kote Police Station. The said case was registered against the petitioner and accused No.2 Amith Singh on the basis of the statement of Avinash.
2. It was alleged that on 06.09.2018 at 11 a.m. in Sahyadri College, Shivamogga, due to some previous ill- will, the petitioner stabbed Avinash on his stomach and attempted to commit his murder and accused No.2 was also present with the petitioner and shared his intention.
3. Sri S.P.Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim is already discharged from the hospital and he suffered simple injury. He further submits that this Court has already granted anticipatory bail to accused No.2, therefore, parity applies.
4. In support of his submissions, he relies on the order of this Court in RAMESHA & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA – LAWS(KAR) 2017 12 41.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that accused No.2 was granted bail on the ground that stabbing was by the petitioner. She further submits that the victim has suffered grievous injuries and weapon used for the commission of the offence is still not recovered and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.
6. As rightly pointed out by the learned High Court Government Pleader, accused No.2 was granted anticipatory bail on the ground that the actual assailant was allegedly the petitioner. The statement of the injured and the other material on record prima facie support the case of the prosecution that the petitioner assaulted the victim with knife on his abdomen.
7. The wound certificate states that the victim had suffered stab injury which led to perforation of anterior wall of transverse colon and the said injury was grievous in nature. The victim was treated as inpatient in the hospital from 06.09.2018 to 17.09.2018.
8. The weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence is still not recovered. Under these circumstances, this Court is satisfied that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.
9. So far as order in Ramesha’s case relied upon by the petitioner, it does not indicate whether any recovery was effected in the said case. Apart from that, the Supreme Court in GAJANAND AGARWAL VS STATE OF ORISSA & OTHERS – (2006) 12 SCC 131, has held that orders of bail are not necessarily orders of any precedental value. Under these circumstances, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, petition dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE KK