Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Harshendra Jain vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|15 October, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6598/2019 BETWEEN:
Harshendra Jain S/o Nemiraj Aged about 50 years Occ: Business R/o No.242-H, 28th Main MRCR Layout, Vijayanagar Bengaluru – 575 040 …Petitioner (By Sri Dineshkumar Rao K, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka by Vijayanagar Police Station Bengaluru City – 560 040 Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru – 560 001 2. T.H.Dhananjaya S/o Hanumantharayappa Aged about 36 years R/at No.1851, 19th Cross 20th Main, Vijayanagara Bengaluru – 560 040 (By Sri Rohith B J, HCGP for R1) …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.193/2019 of Vijayanagara Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 504 and 506 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent No.1-State. Perused the records.
2. Learned HCGP submits that the notice issued to respondent No.2/complainant is duly served. Complainant remained absent.
3. The first information report and other records discloses that there was some land dispute and financial dispute between the complainant and the daughter of accused No.1. In that context some cheque transaction has been taken place and the cheques issued by the son- in-law of accused No.1 have been dishonored. Therefore it is alleged that on 18.06.2018, the mother of the accused has abused the complainant in filthy language with reference to her caste. But there is no specific mention as to the wordings used by the accused persons to abuse her. Further it is stated that on 16.12.2018 in the night at about 8.00pm, all the accused persons particularly the accused No.2 and the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.3 along with one Pushpalatha and another person secured the presence of the complainant to J.K.W. Layout Bus Stand and abused him in filthy language referring to his caste as he belonged to Madiga by community. However, it is not stated who actually abused him, it is an omnibus statement made by the complainant. Be that as it may, the incident is said to have taken place on 16.12.2018, but the complaint was lodged on 15.06.2019 after long lapse of more than six months. Therefore looking to the facts and circumstances, false implication cannot be ruled out at this particular stage.
Further the prosecution has to prove the allegations made against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. However, at this stage there is no reason to deny the bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., as the constitution and attraction of the provision itself is doubtful. Hence the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner (accused No.3) shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.193/2019 of Vijayanagara police station, Bengaluru for the alleged offences subject to the following conditions:-
i. The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
ii. The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation and tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii. The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the I.O., till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months whichever is earlier.
v. The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in fifteen days i.e., on any Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Kmv/-
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

Harshendra Jain vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
15 October, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra