IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8984/2017 BETWEEN:
Mr Kumar Naika E Aged about 35 years S/o Eshwara Naika K Agriculturist by Occupation R/at Holebevanahalli Village Dodda Thanda Shivamoga Taluk and District Pin Code-577 202. ... PETITIONER (By Sri Vijaya Kumar K, Adv.) AND:
State by Shimoga Rural Police Station Represented by Government Pleader High Court Compound Bangalore-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.175/2017 (C.C.No.716/2017) of Shivamogga Rural P.S., Shivamogga District, for the offences P/U/Ss 341, 143, 148, 109, 120B, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by accused No.4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120(B), 143, 148, 302 and 341 r/w Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.175/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.4 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that so far as the present petitioner is concerned there is no prima facie material produced by the prosecution. Serious allegations are against accused No.1 and there was said to be previous enmity between accused No.1 and the deceased. Even if the complaint averments and the statement of the witnesses are perused, there is no material to show the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offences. Accused No.3 has been already admitted to bail by the order of this Court. Now investigation is completed and chargesheet is also filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner- accused No.4 may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the bail petition contending that as per the prosecution material there is a prima facie case even against the petitioner. There are allegations that he also assaulted the deceased with deadly weapon and caused injury to him. From the date of incident till filing of the charge sheet and even after that, petitioner remained absconding. While filing the charge sheet he has been shown as absconding accused. It is submitted that the interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, hence, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and entire charge sheet material produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with the petition, so also, perused the bail order passed by this Court dated 13.11.2017 in Crl.P.No.7429/2017 in respect of accused No.5.
6. As per the prosecution material, the allegation as against accused No.3 and this petitioner are not one and the same. It is alleged by the prosecution that material is collected during investigation against the petitioner herein that he also assaulted the deceased with the deadly weapon. Not only that, the conduct of the petitioner in absconding and not being available to the Investigating Officer during the entire period of investigation and even the charge sheet came to be filed showing the petitioner as absconding accused and also when serious offence is alleged against the petitioner, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Hence, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp