IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
BETWEEN:
SANDEEP CRIMINAL PETITION No.8884/2017 S/O E. ANAND AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO.F2, 2ND FLOOR ‘B’ BLOCK, EMRAD ENCLAVE KAVERI LAYOUT KEREGUDDADAHALLI CHIKKABANAVARA POST YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 090.
(BY SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION YESHWANTHPUR SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.) ... PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.319/2017 OF SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 307 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, registered in respondent police station Crime No.319/2017.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, one Naveen Kumar is the injured, who is said to have been working in Wipro company since six years. The said Naveen Kumar married one Mamatha, a relative of the complainant on 14.6.2017. The first informant’s daughter-in-law was working in M/s.Dell Company and his son used to stay in his in –laws place most of the time and used to visit the first informant every now and then. The first informant’s daughter-in-law resigned her job in M/s.Dell Company about 15 days ago. On 25.9.2017, the first informant’s son and daughter-in- law had visited the first informant, left the house at about 5.30 p.m., called him at about 8.30 p.m. and informed that they reached the house. It is alleged that on 26.9.2017 at about 10.45 p.m., when the first informant called his son, his son informed him that he had returned home after his work. It is further alleged that at the time of marriage, the daughter-in-law of the first informant had introduced the petitioner as her classmate. The petitioner used to visit the house of the complainant’s relative-Lokesh i.e., father of Mamatha. It is further alleged that on 27.9.2017, the injured had informed the first informant that he is going along with his wife to attend pooja in the house of Mr.Sandeep situated at Emrald Enclave. Thereafter, the first informant’s son was not available over phone. It is further alleged that on 27.9.2017 at about 12.45 a.m. father-in-law of the injured called over through mobile phone of the first informant and informed that first informant’s son was assaulted by somebody and he was admitted to Colombia Asia Hospital. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that the injured had been admitted to the hospital on 28.9.2017 and discharged on 8.10.2017. Therefore, at this stage, it goes to show that life of the injured is safe and out of danger. Looking to the nature of injuries and fractures, it appears that they are simple in nature. He contended that the petitioner is innocent and not involved in committing the alleged offence. There is a false implication of this petitioner. He has also undertaken that he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. The alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC though non-bailable in nature, but exclusively not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
5. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC registered in Crime No.319/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE SA