IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7562 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
SRI NAVEENA @ NAVEEN KUMAR.P S/O.PRABHU.K AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT 34, 21ST MAIN, ‘E’ CROSS J.C.NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU – 560 086. (BY SRI RAJANNA.C., ADV.) ... PETITIONER AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVESHWARANAGARA POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY REPRESENTED BY ITS PP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 01.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.215/2017 OF BASAVESHWARA NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 326 R/W. 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL 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 No.2 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 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 326 and 504 read with Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.215/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that the name of the present petitioner is not figured either in the complaint or in the FIR. There are no prima-facie materials as against the present petitioner about his involvement in committing the alleged offences. He also made the submission that the petitioner is studying in B.Com. Accused No.1 has already been granted bail by the order of this Court. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP opposed the petition on the ground that the present petitioner along with accused No.1 and other accused who were possessing the deadly weapons assaulted the complainant and caused the injury. The bail granted against accused No.1 is a regular bail. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the FIR, complaint and other materials, so also the order of this Court passed in Crl.P.No.6762/2017 on 28.9.2017 in respect of accused No.1. After considering the entire merit of the case, this Court has observed in the said bail order that the injured was treated as out-patient only and he was not hospitalized. So this goes to show that there were no serious injuries and by this time his condition would be safe and out of danger. Petitioner contended that he is innocent and not committed the said offences and there is a false implication on him in the present case. The alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 326 and 504 read with Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent police station in Crime No.215/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and has to 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 make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for.
iv. The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
VMB Sd/- JUDGE