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

Sri Madhu @ Madushudhan vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|12 December, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

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.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5993/2017 BETWEEN:
Sri Madhu @ Madushudhan S/o late Ankaiah Aged about 30 years R/at No.262, 8th Main Road Behind Vidyapeeta Gururaja Layout, Banashankari 3rd Stage Bangalore-560 028. ... PETITIONER (By Sri B M Lokesh, Adv.) AND:
State of Karnataka By Sathanur Police Station Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri K Nageshwarappa, 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.222/2016 of Sathnoor P.S., Ramanagara, for the offences P/U/Ss 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 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 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 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.222/2016.
2. 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.
3. During the course of hearing of the petition, by referring to the case file, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the complainant has not sustained any injury.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
5. The petitioner has denied the allegations in the complaint contending that there is a false implication. The offences alleged are triable by the Magistrate Court and are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He 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 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.222/2016, 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 co-operate 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

Sri Madhu @ Madushudhan vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
12 December, 2017
Judges
  • Budihal R B