IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K N PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8056 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI ANAND KUMAR, S/O AJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT HULLUVANAHALLI VILLAGE BYLANARASAPURA, POST NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK-560067, BANGALROE RURAL DISTRICT, (IN REMAND APPLICATION HIS NAME IS SHOWN AS SURENDAR). ...PETITIONER (BY SRI RAKSHITH R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHANKARAPPA S, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HEBBAL P S, BANGALORE-560024, REP BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ROHITH B.J, 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.153/2019 OF HEBBAL P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 337, 304(ii), 304A R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No.153/2019 of Hebbal Police Station for the alleged offence under Section 304(ii), 337, 304(A) read with Section 34 of IPC. Out of the above said offences Sections 304(A) and 337 are bailable offences and Section 304(ii) is non bailable. Therefore, the petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police. Therefore, he approached the trial Court and the trial Court has rejected the bail petition. Therefore, he is before this Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a lady by name Leena, w/o Inar, resident of Bhuvaneshwarinagar, R T Nagar, Bengaluru, has stated that she in a house where a vacant site is there adjoining to their house which belonged to one Muniyappa. The said vacant place was taken on rent by one Ashok Reddy and Hanumanth Reddy. They were storing the sand, bricks, etc., in the said vacant site. Adjoining to the said site a compound wall was there which belonged to the complainant. That on the date of the incident, that was on 10.09.2019 the petitioner who was a driver of a lorry bearing No.KA 03 AB 549 brought the sand in the said lorry and while taking reverse of the said lorry it dashed against the compound wall belonged to the complainant which collapsed, due to that impact the wall fell on the daughter of the complainant by name Rithanya and complainant and her husband also sustained some small injuries. Due to the collapse of the wall which fell on the daughter of the complainant she died due to the impact of the said incident. On the above said allegations a case has been registered for the above said offences.
3. The police have invoked both the provisions under Section 304(ii) and 304(A). They themselves are not clear as to which of the offence actually attracts. Under the above said circumstances, the nature of allegations made and the facts of the case does not show that there was any intention on the part of the petitioner to commit such an offence because while taking the lorry on the reverse side the incident happened. Therefore, in my opinion, when the above said offences are bailable, though the provisions under Section 304(ii) has been doubtfully invoked which is a non bailable in nature, the petitioner reasonably apprehends arrest at the hands of the police. Therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following order.
4. The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.153/2019 of Hebbal Police Station, subject to the following conditions. Hence the following:
ORDER i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission, till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months whichever is earlier.
v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a fortnight i.e. on any Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm, before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE ykl