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

Hemanth M K vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|06 August, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4435/2019 BETWEEN:
HEMANTH M.K.
S/O MANJUNATH KAMMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OFFICE AT FOCUS TV KANNADA NEWS CHANNEL NO.1, SL COMPLEX RMV 2ND STAGE, 3RD BLOCK NEW BEL ROAD BENGALURU 560 093 (BY SRI B.S.JANARDHANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) … PETITIONER AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SANJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU NOW REPRESENTED BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP) 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.89/2019 REGISTERED BY SANJAYNAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 AND 307 R/W 34 OF I.P.C. ON THE FILE OF 8TH ADDL.CMM COURT, BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is arraigned as accused no.1 in Crime No.89/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The allegations made against the petitioner and other accused are that the accused was a Manager of Focus TV and he was a tenant in the house of the complainant. However, he has not paid the rents and electricity charges. In this context, when the complainant went to this petitioner to questioned the same, at that time, the accused along with others namely, Ajith and Manjunath abused the complainant with dire consequences and also assaulted the husband of the complainant and pulled the hair of the complainant and abused her in filthy language etc. It is also there in the materials on record that there was a cheque bounce case pending between the parties and they have also threatened that they should not be evicted from the house property unnecessarily. These facts would show that omnibus allegations have been made against the accused persons. There are no distinguishing allegations made against the petitioner. It is worth to note that the petitioner and other accused persons i.e. Ajith Kumar.M, Sharath Babu, Ashok Kumar J.B., Ravindra G.Kampli and Likhith.G had approached the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.No.5044/2019 and connected petitions. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the bail petition of this petitioner and allowed the bail petitions insofar as others are concerned. The learned Sessions Judge has stated that a civil dispute is pending between the parties i.e. accused no.1 and the complainant. It is observed that the entire allegations are made against accused no.1 whereas omnibus allegations are made against other accused persons. As this petitioner stands on the same footing as that of other accused persons, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail on the same conditions as imposed upon other accused persons. Hence, the following order:
3. The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.89/2019 of Sanjay Nagar Police Station 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 he shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or 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 of Bengaluru District without prior permission of the Court, 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 a week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE hkh.
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

Hemanth M K vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
06 August, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra