Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Paris vs The State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|06 December, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8797/2017 BETWEEN:
Paris S/o Abbubakar Aged about 26 years Achangi Village Sakaleshpura Taluk Hassan District-34. ... PETITIONER (By Sri Pratheep K C, Adv.) AND:
The State of Karnataka Represented by Sakaleshpura Town Police Station Hassan District Represented by its State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bangalore-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri Chetan Desai, 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.269/2017 of Sakaleshpura Town P.S., Hassan District, for the offences P/U/Ss 341, 307, 114 read with Section 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 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.269/2017.
2. 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.
3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
4. One Ebrahim Kaleel is the complainant who gave statement that about four and half years back he had borrowed hand loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from Muneer on interest and about three years back, he returned the same. On 10.9.2017 he had gone to Achangi for lunch and had come back to Champaka Nagar and was moving in a car bearing No.KL-18-S-5296 and the car was driven by Juber. At about 3.30 p.m. when they were near Kudugarahalli bridge one car bearing No.CAP 9194 came from Sakaleshpura side and blocked way and accused No.1 dialed the number to Muneer and given it to Khaleel and asked him to talk to Muneer and Muneer threatened him with dire consequences and further demanded for money. Thereafter, accused No.1 had talk with Muneer over phone and thereafter, he attempted to stab on the stomach of the complainant, but he escaped and sustained injury on his hand. Thereafter, injuries were also caused on his head, nose and eyes. When his brother Juber tried to intervene, another person held him and accused No.1 assaulted him on his stomach and caused injuries and people around came and pacified galata. On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered for the above said offences.
5. During hearing of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 has produced the injury certificate of Juber and also of Khaleel. In respect of Juber, the Doctor has mentioned that injury Nos.1 and 2 are simple in nature. Regarding injuries sustained by Khaleel it is mentioned that injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injury Nos.2, 3 and 4 are simple in nature.
It is submitted that both the injured are discharged from the hospital. Therefore, their life is safe and out of danger. The alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC though non-bailable, but not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Petitioner has undertaken to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that petitioner can be granted with anticipatory bail.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.269/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp
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

Paris vs The State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
06 December, 2017
Judges
  • Budihal R B