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.9209/2017 BETWEEN:
Sri. Mahesh J, S/o. Janardhan, Aged about 34 years, Residing at No. 37, 11th Main, Temple Street, Malleshwaram, Bangalore -560 003. ...Petitioner (By Sri. Srinivas N. Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Malleshwaram Police Station, Bengaluru. …Respondent (By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.59/2017 of Vidhana Soudha Police Station, Bengaluru City, which is registered for the offence P/U/S 323, 324, 326, 307, 427, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 25(1) (B)(b) of Indian Arms Act.
This Criminal Petition is coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 326, 307, 427, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 25(1)(B)(b) of Indian Arms Act in Crime No. 59/2017 and later on the police made the requisition before the Court for adding the offences under Section 307 of IPC and 25 (1) (B) (b) of Indian Arms Act.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR came to be registered against unknown persons. Name of the present petitioner has not figured either in the complaint or in the FIR. He submitted that a perusal of the entire prosecution material goes to show that there is no case as against the petitioner herein. The counsel submitted that some of the accused who are arrested were already granted bail. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions the petitioner/accused No.1 may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition contended that accused Nos.1 to 4 are still absconding. The offences as per the police requisition are under Section 307 of IPC and 25 (1)(B)(b) of Indian Arms Act. Hence he submitted that interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for further investigation of the matter. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case. As per FIR, name of the petitioner has not figured but subsequently looking to the remand application and other materials produced by the prosecution, the name of the petitioner is shown as accused No.1 and he is absconding so also accused Nos. 2 to 4 are absconding as per the remand application.
During the course of hearing of the petition learned Government Pleader also submitted that the injuries sustained are three which are grievous injuries and for more than eight days he was in the hospital. The offences are also under the provisions of the Indian Arms Act. Therefore, considering these materials on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a case for granting anticipatory bail at this stage and custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is necessary.
Accordingly the petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE BVK