Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Prabhu vs The State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|10 April, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1995/2019 Between:
Prabhu S/o. Kunhiram Aged about 35 years Residing at No.39 Mittu Rent House Kaikeri Village Gonikoppal South Kodagu Pin Code - 571 213. ...Petitioner (By Sri R.K. Mahadeva, Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka Rep. by the Station House Officer Gonikoppa Police Station Gonikoppa Circle Kodagu District Pin Code– 571 213.
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building High Court Bengaluru – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri. M. Divakar Maddur., HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.6/2019 of Gonikoppa Police Station, Kodagu for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking to release him on bail in Crime No.6/2019 of Gonikoppa Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that:
On 21.01.2019 at about 7.15 p.m., when the complainant had been to sports material shop to purchase coat, the petitioner/accused No.1, who is running a fruit shop came to the said shop and all of a sudden with a billhook/sickle assaulted the complainant behind his back. When he tried to assault for third time, he caught hold the hand of the petitioner/accused No.1 and at that time, he sustained injury to his hand. As the petitioner was having a grudge against the complainant, he has tried to assault and take away the life of the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 that the petitioner/ accused No.1 is innocent and he has not involved in the instant case. He further submits that the injured is already discharged from the hospital and he is out of danger. The injuries suffered by the petitioner/accused No.1 is simple in nature. The alleged offences are not at all attracting under Section 323 of IPC. He further submits that he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that petitioner/accused No.1 with an intention to take away the life, has assaulted the complainant with billhook/sickle and caused grievous injuries. He further submits that the complainant was admitted in the Gonikoppa Government Hospital for the injuries sustained to him in the alleged crime. If the petitioner/accused No.1 is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witness or he may not be available for trial. There is ample material to connect the accused to the alleged crime. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other materials, it indicates that the alleged offences occurred because of the grudge, which was there, between the petitioner/accused No.1 and the complainant. The petitioner/accused No.1 entered into the sports material shop to purchase coat and at that time, the petitioner/accused No.1 suddenly attacked on the complainant with the billhook/sickle and caused injuries. The injured is discharged from the hospital and even the injuries suffered are simple in nature and the complainant is out of danger. It is the matter to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. Under the said facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that by imposing some stringent conditions, if petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail, it meets the ends of justice.
8. In that light, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail in Crime No.6/2019 of Gonikoppa Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC subject to the following conditions:-
1. Petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
3. He shall mark his attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., before the jurisdictional police.
4. He shall not tamper the prosecution evidence in any manner and shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities.
5. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly in any manner.
nms Sd/- JUDGE
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

Prabhu vs The State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
10 April, 2019
Judges
  • B A Patil