IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6024/2017 BETWEEN:
KITTY @ KRISHNE GOWDA @ SRINIVASA, S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO 0 VAIKUNTA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDHURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-561424. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARUN KUMAR Y. H., ADV.,) AND:
KENGERI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU.
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.161/2014 (S.C.NO.69/2016) OF KENGERI P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 324, 307 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.161/2014 now pending in S.C.No.69/2016 on the file of LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-59).
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments that the complainant is a permanent resident of Sarjapura, presently he is running a printing press in the name and style of Vishva Karma Printers. On 13.06.2014 at around 1.00p.m. he went to Kommaghatta Road in a two wheeler along with his friend with an intension to put currency for his mobile, he stopped opposite to a Robin Theater, at that time, some four unknown persons came in two wheelers and questioned, who is Harsha, the complainant revealed his name. At that time, two persons covered and assaulted with long on his left hand, ear and left hand shoulder, another person assaulted with the dragger on right side waist, right fore hand, on right leg. At that time two people wearing helmets. The assailants wore jeans pant, t-shirt and the complainant found that they came in a black pulsar, another two persons came in a M/C Modern. The complainant identified those persons, they are aged 20- 22 years. The public, who were nearby the said place, also seen the incident. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered firstly against four unknown persons and during the course of investigation, petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.1.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that the alleged offence is under Section 307 of IPC along with other offences. Sofar as pending of other cases are concerned, he relied upon the order of this Court dated 19.06.2013 passed in Crl.P.2522/2013, so also, the order of Rajashtan High Court rendered in the case of Jaichand vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1991(3) Crimes. Hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that, he secured the information from the concerned Police, even as of today nine cases are pending against the petitioner and they are the offence punishable under Sections 307, 397, 399, 384 of IPC and etc., It is also submitted that the petitioner is a rowdy sheeter. Hence, he submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, so also, the orders relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, and other materials placed on record.
7. Looking to the complaint averments, the victim who is injured, filed the complaint regarding the act committed by the petitioner assaulting the injured and causing bleeding injuries to him. No doubt true, as per the injury certificate, the injuries are simple in nature. But looking to the submission made by the learned HCGP that nearly 20 criminal cases were registered against the petitioner and his name is mentioned in the rowdy sheeter opened in the police station.
8. I have also perused the orders relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the factual story in those two orders and the factual matrix involved in the case on hand are not one and the same. When the rowdy sheeter has been opened in respect of the petitioner, and as submitted by the learned HCGP that, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may involve in committing the similar offence in future and he may cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. Therefore, considering the materials on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and to release him on bail. Hence, petition is hereby rejected.
However, after examining the prosecution witnesses C.Ws.1 to 3, the petitioner is at liberty to move the concerned trial Court again seeking his release on bail.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR