IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6818 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT THOREPALYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK.
RAMANAGARA DISTRCIT-562 112.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI LOKESH S.G., ADV.,) AND:
STATE BY MAGADI POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) * * * THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.53/2017 OF MAGADI P.S., RAMANAGARA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354, 354A, 325 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 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 354, 354(A) and 325 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.53/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused made the submission that false allegations are made against the petitioner and it is the complainant and other persons who have assaulted the petitioner and caused injuries and he was admitted to the hospital. In this connection, learned counsel draw the attention of this Court to the documents produced at Annexure-D - prescription of Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. It is submitted that there is false implication and apprehending that the petitioner himself may file the complaint, he was involved in the false case. Hence, learned counsel submitted to allow the petition and grant anticipatory bail as prayed in the petition.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State made the submission that because of the assault made by the present petitioner, the victim sustained grievous and simple injuries and her two teeth were broken. He also made the submission that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents. There is case registered in Crime No.62/2015 for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. So also in another Crime No.332/2016 registered for offence under Section 354 of IPC. Hence, he made the submission that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents and he is released on bail, there is treat to the complainant and also to the family members. Hence, he sought for rejection of the bail petition.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that insofar as Crime No.332/2016 is concerned, the petitioner has already been acquitted.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioner herein, so also perused the other materials placed on record.
7. Looking to the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that the matter requires custodial interrogation of the petitioner and it is not a case to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE PB