IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.899 OF 2019 Between:
Madhu.V @ Kulla Madhu, S/o. Venkatesh, Aged About 23 Years, Residing At House of Chandra, 5th Cross, Near Raghavendra Swamy Temple, Machohalli Colony, Machohalli, Magadi Road, Bengaluru - 560 091.
...Petitioner (By Sri. Ramesh H.N. a/w Sri veeranna G. Tigadi, Advocates) And:
The State of Karnataka By Kamakshipalya P.S., Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru - 560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri. K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.4/2019 of Kamakshipalya P.S., Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 307 read with Section 24 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 as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner- Accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting regular bail for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC on the file of V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
3. The case of the prosecution is that Sri.Honnaraju gave a report to the police alleging that on 02.01.2019 at about 7.30 p.m. accused Nos.1 to 3 (not present petitioner) along with his friends picked up quarrel with him and stabbed with the knife, due to which he sustained injury on the left side of the chest and he was admitted to the hospital and after registering the case, police arrested the petitioner along with other accused on 06.01.2019 and he was remanded to judicial custody and the petitioner moved the bail petition before the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.312/2019, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2019.
4. By filing this petition learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though petitioner and other accused known to the complainant, he has not mentioned the name of the present petitioner and there is no overt-act alleged against him and the injured has already been discharged from the hospital on 06.01.2019 itself. Therefore, he prays for granting the bail.
5. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State contended that that the accused is an habitual offender and there is 2 to 3 cases registered against him, which is pending before the same police station. Sessions Court rejected the bail petition of the petitioner on the ground that if he is released from the custody, he may commit similar offence. Hence, he prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
6. Having heard both the sides and on perusal of the complaint, no doubt the name of the other accused was shown by the complainant, but the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the complaint or in the FIR and his name has been mentioned only in the remand application and there is no overt-act attributed against this petitioner except accused No.1, who stabbed injured with the knife. The knife used for alleged offence has also been recovered from the accused No.1 and the injured is already discharged from the hospital on 06.01.2019 and he is out of danger. Merely because some case is registered against this petitioner which is pending before the Court, that itself is not a ground to reject the bail application without any previous conviction being held against him. However, by looking to the facts and circumstances, by imposing certain stringent conditions the bail is granted to the present petitioner no prejudice would cause to the prosecution case.
Hence, I pass the following order:
(i) The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
(ii) The petitioner is order to enlarged on bail in Crime No.4/2019 registered by Kamakshipalya Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 323, 341 and 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC, by executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
(iii) The petitioner strictly shall not indulge in any similar offences.
(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer and shall mark his attendance on every Monday between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. for a period of three months or till the filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.
(v) The prosecution reserved liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions imposed.
SD/- JUDGE DS/Gbb