IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3120/2019 BETWEEN:
MARUTHI @ POLARD @ POLARD, SON OF LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAMASANAHALLI VILLAGE, KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR -572 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.VASANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY GOWRIBIDANUR RURAL POLICE, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.227/2018 (S.C.NO.76/2018) OF GOWRIBIDANUR RURAL P.S., CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 332,353,307 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for State. Perused records.
2. The brief facts of the case on hand are that, respondent-police were searching for accused No.1- Arunkumar and accused No.2-Suresha, in connection with Crime No.118/2018. In order to apprehend them, the respondent-police have constituted a group and went in search of those two accused persons. Respondent-police had credible information that accused persons were there near Kuroodi cross, Gowribidanur taluk near a tamarind grove. On receiving such information, on 2.10.2018, they went to the particular spot and at about 2 a.m., they observed that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were consuming alcohol and they were also hurling that no police can do anything to them, etc. The police immediately went there and attempted to apprehend accused Nos.1 and 2. In that context, accused No.1 took out a long and assaulted P.C.No.18 and accused No.2 also assaulted P.C.Manjunath with knife. Police have also encountered shot at the accused persons. In that context, accused NO.1 suffered a bullet injury to his left leg. In this manner, it is alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were caught. At that particular point of time, petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.3 was also present on the said spot, who was also arrested.
3. As could be seen from the said facts and circumstances of the case, in the FIR as well as in the charge sheet, there is no specific overtact alleged against the petitioner except stating that he was also present at the scene of offence. Therefore, looking to the above said facts and circumstances and nature of allegations made against the petitioner, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail, particularly under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with S.C.No.76/2018 (Crime No.227/2018) on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, for the offence under Sections 332, 353, 307 r/w 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.